NAME HIM SO THAT THE PEOPLE ARE SAVED FROM (THE …

NAMING AND SHAMING THE ZINDEEQS AND MUDHILLEEN

0

“NAME HIM SO THAT THE PEOPLE ARE SAVED FROM (THE FITNAH WITHIN) HIM..”

(Rasulullah –Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)

By:

Mujlisul Ulama of South Africa

P.O. Box 3393

Port Elizabeth

6056


1

A DONKEY AND A SHAITAAN

“He who is given cause for anger, but displays no anger is a donkey.

He who is appeased, but is not

pleased is a shaitaan.”

(Imaam Shaafi’ – Rahmatullah alayh)

When there exists valid Shar’i cause for anger –

Bughdh fil Laah – but a person finds no anger

in his heart, he is, at the minimum, a donkey.

And, he who refuses to accept the apology of the

repentant one is a shaitaan.


2

INTRODUCTION

At a recent function erroneously termed ‘walimah’, the

eating arrangement was westernized. All the guests

had to devour food from tables, sitting on chairs in

kuffaar style. Amongst the crowd were several Molvis

who flagrantly violated the Sunnah by joining with the

crowd to eat from tables without any qualms.

A Brother who happens to be a Madrasah Student was

also present. This Student selected to sit on the floor in

one corner to eat in Sunnah style. An elder of the

Tabligh Jamaat, haemorrhaging in his heart and brains

with spasms of anti-Sunnah bile, could not contain his

abhorrence for the sight of a Muslim eating food

sitting on the floor in the style of Rasulullah (Sallallahu

alayhi wasallam). He felt obliged to vent his satanic

emotions.

Thus, this character whose mental equilibrium was

disturbed by the sight of the Sunnah deemed it

appropriate to excrete a torrent of kufr thereby

denigrating the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) and humiliating publicly the honour of the

Student who was observing the Sunnah.

The Student complained to us about the disgraceful

conduct of the miserable elder of the Tabligh Jamaat. In

addition to having blurted out kufr, he also sullied the


3

name of the Tabligh Jamaat, for this chap happens to be

an elder of the Jamaat.

Taking up the valid complaint of the Student, we

published a comment on the episode for the edification

of the miscreant and as guidance and warning to the

community in general, and to the Ulama in particular –

the Ulama who had been complicit with the miscreant

in his kufr. They had condoned the tirade of kufr with

their spectating and silence, thereby qualifying

themselves for the epithet, Dumb Devils mentioned by

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasalam) for those who

maintain silence whilst the Sunnah and the Haqq are

being disgustingly trampled on.

After the publication of our comment, a miserable

student molvi, with an egregiously bloated ego, having

hallucinations of being a ‘mujtahid’, entered the scene

with a stupid disgorgement of utterly baseless

arguments -arguments which he had lapped up from the

internet – in defence of the character who had

denigrated the Sunnah at the mock ‘walimah’. The

misguided student molvi, only succeeded to exhibit his

jahaalat with Qur’aanic Aayaat and Ahaadith

extraneous to the topic which he himself introduced in

an abortive bid to defend what is indefensible in terms

of the Shariah.

The misguided student molvi presented the theme of

“naming and shaming” the subject of the discussion,

but he has miserably failed to proffer even a single

valid Shar’i daleel for his contention abortively

designed to defend the anti-Sunnah Tablighi Jamaat

elder. In presenting his case, the student molvi had


4

simply executed a haphazard cut and paste job from

some website. It is palpably clear that he does not

understand the greater part of the Arabic references

which he had cut from the internet.

Initially, it was not our intention to respond to the drivel

the fellow had presented as his argument for his

imagined impermissibility of naming deviates.

However, another consideration constrained us to

respond. This treatise is our brief response to the drivel

offered by the miscreant in defence of the other

miscreant who had flagrantly denigrated the Sunnah and

disparaged the honour of a Muslim Brother.

The consideration which goaded us into this response is

the despicable attitude of the Asaatizah of the Darul

Ulooms who corrupt the brains of students with gheebat

of others, especially of those whom they deem to be

their adversaries among the Ulama-e-Haqq. Instead of

the Asaatizah being examples of Taqwa and guidance

for their students, nowadays they are mudhilleen –

misguiders. The gheebat of the Madrasah teachers

breeds disrespect in students, stunts their intelligence

and deprives them of Roohaaniyat which is a vital

requisite for the acquisition of the Noor of Ilm.

Thus, this Response is naseehat for the miscreant

Tablighi Jamaat elder who has lost his Imaan in

consequence of his tirade of kufr. It is hoped that he

will understand his villainous folly and repent. This

treatise is also naseehat for the miscreant student molvi

who had undertaken the stupid task of presenting

drivel dalaa-il thereby exposing gross Ilmi deficiency.

And, it is also a naseehat for the Asaatizah who have


5

been entrusted with the Amaanat of the Talaba. The

Ulama who have lost respect for the Sunnah can also

derive naseehat from this discussion.

JUHHAAL PARADING AS ULAMA

By Hadhrat Maulana Qaasim Nanotwi

(Rahmatullah alayh)

“Leave the ignoramuses (of the masses),

know with certitude that nowadays,

if not all, then at least most of the Ulama

are jaahil. In fact some Ulama are

greater jaahils than the juhala (among

the masses). They wander around

delivering lectures whilst they are

bereft of any semblance of Knowledge.”

This was the commentary of Hadhrat

Nanotwi (Rahmatullah alayh) of the

condition of the Ulama about two centuries

ago. What should be the opinion today in

this era of fitnah, fisq and fujoor in which

the molvis are the forerunners?


6

PLAGIARISM AND CHICANERY

“Never regard those who are proud over what they

have perpetrated whilst they love to be praised for

such deeds which they did not render ---

never ever think that they will escape from the

punishment. For them there is a painful chastisement.”

(Aal-e-Imraan, Aayat 188)

Besides the specific circumstance of revelation (Shaan-

e-Nuzool) of this Aayat, the generality (Umoom) of the

castigation is applicable to the student molvi and to the

new breed molvis of this era who are deceived by the

nafsaani idea of being ‘experts’ in the field of Ilm of the

Deen.

The practice of these paper ‘experts’ is to search the

internet for tahqiq (research). Being inept and grossly

deficient in Isti’daad, they lack valid access to the

Kutub of the Shariah, hence they resort to the impure

internet media for lapping up the deficient and even

corrupt tahqeeqaat (researches) of deviates – liberals

and Salafis.

The miscreant molvi who has deemed it appropriate to

open his mouth in defence of the anti-Sunnah Zindeeq,

is one of those molvis who presents internet

disgorgement as his own ‘tahqiq’ for which he is


7

hopeful of praises and accolades. Goaded on by an

egregiously bloated ego, he extracts on a wholesale

basis just anything from the internet which he imagines

will vindicate his corrupt stance.

Instead of researching the Kutub and citing therefrom,

the miscreant exhibits his extreme paucity of valid

Kutub references, hence his information is gleaned

primarily from websites. That is why he has been

capable of displaying hideous audacity by refuting the

official and authoritative Tafseer of Qur’aanic aayaat,

which has come down to us the long passage of 14

centuries. Just imagine the gross jahaalat, to say the

least, of this upstart paper ‘mujtahid’ who avers that

the Tafseer which has been recorded since the past

fourteen centuries, and narrated by all the illustrious

Mufassireen, is not worthy to quote. Perhaps he is

trapped in the addiction of some substance abuse,

especially the substance of inordinate ujub and

takabbur of the nafs.

He cites lengthy texts acquired from websites without

even acknowledging the source. This is plagiarism and

chicanery, and these are outstanding features of the

character of the paper ‘mujtahids’ of this era. They

steal the deficient tahqeeqaat of even liberals and

Salafis and present it in a manner to bring them within

the scope of the castigation mentioned in the

aforementioned Qur’aanic Aaayat. They desire

accolades and praise for their literary deception – for

their deficient cut and paste jobs.


8

THE SUNNAH IS NOT THE

HANDMAID OF KUFFAAR NORMS

AND NAFSAANI DESIRES

THE BACKGROUND The complaint of the Student who was humiliated with

the tirade of kufr disgorged by the anti-Sunnah tablighi

doctor, and our comment are reproduced here.

A Brother lamenting, writes:

Respected Mufti Saheb

Assalaamualaikum

I recently attended the nikah of the daughter of Dr

Mubeen who is a prominent member and an old worker

at the Johannesburg Markaz of the Tabligh Jamaat. He is

originally from Pakistan and he is part of the Shura

committee. After the nikah I attended the dawat hosted

by Dr Mubeen. There were two separate venues for

ladies and men. Accordingly I thought that everything

will be according to sunnat so I attended.

When I entered there I was shocked to find that only

tables and chairs were set out. I asked one of the waiters

if it would be possible for me to sit on the floor and if he

could arrange for a table cloth. He happily obliged and


9

gave me permission. I enjoyed the meal and no one

prevented me. I noticed Dr Mubeen going from table to

table attending to everybody, but it seemed as if he was

purposely ignoring me. Since we are quite close I

assumed that this thought was just from shaytaan. I did

not see anybody else sitting on the floor. At the nikah

ceremony I noticed that many famous Ulema from the

tabligh jamaat and major Darul Ulooms had attended.

Some people were pointing fingers at me, nevertheless I

was happy and didn’t think anything at that time. I met

the grooms brother at the dawat, he was an old school

friend of mine, he was overjoyed to see me sitting the

sunnah way.

On Sunday I attended the Walima. This time I took my

dastarkhan with me so as not to cause takleef. I arrived

early and I was happy to meet my old school friend

outside who is the groom’s brother who was hosting the

Walima. I told him “You know how I sit and eat, can I

bring my dastarkhaan?” He gave full permission and

later even helped me to find a place to sit which was

completely out of the way. It was still early and after I

laid down my dastarkhaan I noticed that Dr Mubeen had

entered and people were going to greet him.

I got up and made my way to him to greet him. He

looked at my Dastarkhaan and caught my arm. He said,

“I wanted to tell you on Friday when I saw you, that this

what you are doing is very wrong. You cannot sit on the

floor here. There is a time and place for everything, and

this is not the place to do this Sunnat.”


10

I tried to calm him down by saying that this is my habit

and that I am not comfortable with sitting at a table.

Before I could finish my sentence he cut me off by

nodding his head as if he was disappointed and said,

“No no no, there are big big Ulama here. You are

insulting them, you are insulting our guests and our

hosts by doing this here. We even eat on the floor at

home, but here we don’t do this. This is not the place.

This is why you must come in Tableegh Jamaat, we will

teach you how to practice on the Sunnat. There are great

great Ulama here. Who are you? (He was quite loud at

this point and I could see another uncle to the left of me

shaking his head in agreement as if to spur him on.) You

are a small person. You are nothing compared to them.

You come here and insult everybody. How can you go

and sit like this here? In fact, I want you to come and sit

next to me (at a table), you are our Sher (lion), our tiger

(he said this as if to apply Vaseline to my wounded

heart.) You must come and sit next to me.” I was almost

in tears at this point.

I went to my father and asked him to have a word with

him outside. I told him that I am not used to sitting at a

table. In fact, when I stayed at hotels during safar

(journey), they obliged to reserve a special section for

me to sit on the floor. This was a Walimah. A Sunnah of

our Nabi (Sallallaahu alaihi wasallam). I was

heartbroken and confused. My house was a walking

distance of 10-15 minutes away. I walked home and

warmed up some leftover food and ate it alone at home.

When my mother came home she had found out and

asked me why did I not eat. I told her what had


11

happened. She was very emotional. My mother went to

visit Dr Mubeen’s wife (who is her very close friend) a

few days later to thank her. She was happy that I was

sitting on the floor and enquired if I had eaten well. My

mother informed her of what transpired at the Walima

and that I had not eaten. Upon hearing this his wife

started crying.

Question: What I would like to know is that we often

hear the Jamaat brothers announce in the Masjid, “My

success, your success and the success of the entire

mankind lies in Deen. Deen is to obey the Commands of

Allah Ta’ala as shown to us by Nabi (Sallallaahu

alaihi wasallam). For this to come into our lives a

definite effort is required…,” thus I have understood

that success lies in following Nabi (Sallallahu alaihi

wasallam), and Nabi (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam) never

ever sat at a table and ate even though others sat at

tables. Therefore I have tried to implement this in my

life with my best efforts. I understand and accept that I

am a small person and I don’t know everything, that is

why I am enquiring, is the Sunnat implemented only at

certain times and at certain places or do we abandon the

Sunnat when big and great Ulama abandon it in the eye

of the public? Do we blindly follow them (the big and

great Ulama) when the Sunnat can be implemented?

Maybe it is the fault of the host for not providing

suitable facilities to eat on the floor and this is why the

Ulama are mazoor?

(End of the Brother’s lament.)

COMMENT


12

Brother, firstly, you have to be reprimanded for your

attendance of a function organized in kuffaar style.

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“It is not proper for a Mu’min to bring disgrace on

himself.”

You were humiliated the first occasion when you

attended the haraam wedding reception, and along with

your humiliation, the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu

alayhi wasallam) was humiliated with kufr tahqeer (the

attitude of contempt). Then despite having been publicly

humiliated you went into the very same pit of disgrace

by attending the so-called ‘walimah’ where you were

humiliated to a greater degree. It is mentioned in the

Hadith that a Mu’min is not bitten twice from the same

hole. Your error was to have attended the anti-Sunnah,

haraam functions.

Needless to say, the attitude of the host was kufr. He

mocked and held in contempt the Sunnah of Rasulullah

(sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The Sunnah is meant for

all time right until the Day of Qiyaamah.

The ‘great’ ulama present were members of the

fraternity of ulama-e-soo’. Only such vile ‘ulama’

bereft of genuine love for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) are capable of tolerating the flagrantly kufr

attitude of the host. Only the evil ulama compromise and

abandon the Sunnah and the Haqq in the public domain

and tolerate contempt hurled on the Sunnah.

The averment of the host, that the so-called ‘walimah’

was not the venue for the Sunnah but the Tablighi


13

Jamaat Ijtimah tent is the proper venue for the Sunnah is

a portrayal of his nifaaq. The Qur’aan Majeed says

about those who practise double standards with the

Deen: “They speak with their tongues what is not in

their hearts.”

One who has honour for the Sunnah, will never conduct

himself so despicably as the host had acquitted himself,

showing scorn for the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu

alayhi wasallam). That the Sunnah is to be staunchly

upheld at all times and in all places is vividly

demonstrated by the attitude of Hadhrat Huzaifah

(Radhiyallahu anhu). A group of Sahaabah was invited

for meals by the Christian king of Irbal. The food was

spread on the ground.

Whilst eating, a morsel of food slipped from the hand of

Hadhrat Huzaifah (Radhiyallahu anhu). And it fell on

the ground. He promptly picked it up and as he was

about to eat it, a Muslim sitting next to him whispered to

him not to eat it in the presence of the king and his

royal retinue. They were looking on and would gain a

bad impression of the Muslims.

Hadhrat Huzaifah (Radhiyallahu anhu), loudly

exclaimed for all to hear: “Should I abandon the

Sunnah of my Beloved for the sake of these

ignoramuses?” Then he proceeded to consume the

morsel. The host of the brother who was affronted by

the brother’s insistence to observe the Sunnah is not

only among the Humakaa’ (ignoramuses), he in fact is

guilty of kufr. The Christian king and his noblemen did

not comment adversely on the Sunnah. They were silent,


14

yet Hadhrat Huzaifah (Radhiyallahu anhu) labelled them

Humaqaa’. Now what label should be attached to this

miserable host who pretends to be a Tablighi but

despises the Sunnah?

The refrain, “My success, your success and the success

of entire mankind lies in the Deen..........” which is the

opening statement in the announcements of the Tablighi

brothers, by far and large has become an empty, hollow

monotonous cliché. The host who is a prominent

member of the Tablighi Jamaat has demonstrated

practically the hollowness of this cliché. The vast

majority of them is shockingly ignorant of the Sunnah.

For them the Sunnah is confined to the turban, kurtah,

beard and miswaak. Most of them have even discarded

the Waajib Sunnah of the pants above the ankles. They

have discarded the Wajib Sunnah of the Sunnah Salaat

after the Fardh. They accord priority to their bayaan and

relegate the Sunnah Salaat to the background. Their

muaasharaat (social dealings) are rotten as the host has

demonstrated with his reaction to the brother seated on

the ground.

The Sunnah for them is a hobby to be practised at

convenience, and to project a face of piety and holiness.

It has no real meaning in practical life. They speak of

‘definite effort’. This has become a comical cliché

because there is no ‘definite’ effort’ for the Deen in the

lives of the majority of the Tabligh Jamaat members.

‘Definite effort’ is the effort of Hadhrat Huzaifah

(Radhiyallahu anhu) and of the Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu

anhum).


15

The implementation of the Sunnah has uniform

application. It is not a haphazard culture of convenience

and expedience. It is not the handmaid of desire,

fashion, style, least of all of Tashabbuh bil kuffaar, and

that is exactly what eating from tables and sitting on

chairs for meals means.

The errors and sins of ‘great’ ulama may not be

followed. Following the errors and sins of ‘great’ ulama

was the practice of Bani Israaeel, hence, the Qur’aan

reprimands: “They take their ahbaar (molvis and

sheikhs – their ‘great’ ulama) and their ruhbaan (their

khaanqah sheikhs) as gods besides Allah.....”

About the errors and obscurities of the ‘great’ Ulama,

Allaamah Abdul Wahhaab Sha’raani (Rahmatullah

alayh) said: “He who clings to the rarities (errors,

obscurities and diversionary views) of the Ulama, verily

he has made his exit from Islam.” The weaknesses,

compromises and spinelessness of the ‘great’ ulama who

had ate at the tables are never daleel for the

expungement of the Sunnah. Their deficiencies are not a

basis for treating the Sunnah like a hobby or a handmaid

to come forward at beck and call.

This should never be the style of this Ummah.

Unfortunately, it has become the style of the Muslim

masses to follow the sinful deeds of the miscreant

‘great’ ulama simply because such following is

appealing to the bestial nafs.

The ulama are never ‘ma’zoor’ for commission of

haraam as the brother surmises. They are culpable and


16

complicit in killing the Sunnah by their active

connivance and support of the miscreant host.

We are living in the era in which the ulama-e-soo’

abound. The Deen has become forlorn and friendless as

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Islam began ghareeb (forlorn and friendless). Soon

shall it return to that ghareeb state as it had begun.

Congratulations to the Ghuraba (the forlorn ones who

struggle to uphold the Sunnah).”

NAMING AND SHAMING THE

ZINDEEQS AND THE MUDHILLEEN –

RESURRECTING A VITAL SUNNAH

The problem with the student who wrote the article is

that he is a bit too big for his boots. He thinks of

himself as being a ‘mujtahid’, hence he cites Qur’aanic

aayaat and Ahaadith at random and subjects these to

his personal opinion to fabricate what he hallucinates is

the law. The problem of all sciolists – those with a

smattering of knowledge – is that they suffer from ujub,

hence to proffer an image of scholarship they simply

darken pages with Qur’aanic verses and Ahaadith

which are totally unrelated to the topic of discussion.

This student’s knowledge is extremely deficient and

constricted. He cites randomly without understanding

what the issue is. When it is said that pork is haraam, he

seeks to prove the ‘hillat’ of pork with dalaa-il proving


17

the hillat of mutton. He argues exactly in the same style

and fashion as the mob of ulama-e-soo’. We can see

that he is firmly set on following the path of the ulama-

e-soo’.

Between the riwaayaat pertaining to persons who

sinned in privacy and the specific episode of the

denigrator of the Sunnah in public, there is absolutely no

correlation. The student has failed to discern and

understand the fundamental difference between the two

different scenarios. Since he has miserably failed to

understand the difference, all his dalaa-il are flotsam in

relation to the subject matter under discussion. He

subconsciously desires to acquit himself as a

‘mujtahid’, yet he fails to understand the difference

between a person who sins in privacy and a person who

audaciously scorns the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu

alayhi wasllam) in the public domain. He lacks the

intellectual ability to distinguish between a simple

sinner who commits a sin and a veritable mudhil who

commits Istikhfaaf of the Sunnah in the public.

The miscreant student, with the examples he presents,

rebuts his own ‘naming and shaming’ concept which he

monotonously ingeminates. The gravamen of his insipid

and baseless article is that a culprit should not be

named and shamed. This is like saying that a person

should not be killed. Killing is valid and even Waajib

for a Shar’i reason. In many cases, killing is an ibaadat.

It is moronic to contend that in all cases naming and

shaming are not permissible. The mudhil who pillages

the Imaan of the awaam (public) has to be compulsorily

named and shamed. The robber who waylays people


18

and loots their property must be named and shamed. The

serial rapists must be named and shamed. Where the

objective of naming and shaming is the protection of the

Imaan, morals, life and property of people, then such

naming and shaming become Waajib. In fact, namimg

and shaming is a Sunnah which the Ulama have

abandoned in almost entirety.

Besides numerous practical examples of naming and

shaming in the interests of Imaan and Islam to be found

in the Kutub of the Shariah, there is explicit Nass for the

ibaadat of naming and shaming. This ibaadat in which

the Muhadditheen excelled should be sufficient for

demolishing the baseless contention of the student. The

chap seems to be ignorant of the science of Jarah and

Ta’deel which literally is the act of naming and

shaming to safeguard the Deen and to save the Imaan of

Muslims, and to save them from being ensnared into the

meshes of the shaitaani trap.

The worst epithets of naming and shaming emblazon the

science of Jarah-Ta’deel. The issue here is not the

motive. What is under scrutiny is the act of naming a

deviate. As long as the niyyat is Islamically valid, the

naming of the deviate, shaitaan and the donkey will be

laudable and even incumbent as an effect of Amr Bil

Ma’roof Nahyi Anil Munkar. The science of

Criticizing and Assessing the characters of the narrators,

is the weakest branch of Islamic Knowledge. It is most

confusing and even weird. The contradictions are

bewildering. Nevertheless, despite the flimsy foundation

of this branch of Knowledge, the Muhadditheen are not

castigated for employing the worst of pejoratibe, in fact

scandalous epithets for assailing, naming, shaming and


19

condemning a narrator. On the contrary, the disparaging

of the honour of narrators is validly justified for the

protection of the Imaan of the masses and for guarding

the purity of the Deen.

Commenting on this weird, but valid branch of

Knowledge, Allaamah Aini (Rahmatullah alayh) says: “He who has a panoptical gaze on the kutub of Asmaaur Rijaal

will discover bewildering wonders therein. He will find that

some Raawi (Narrator) who is among the Pillars of the Deen

against whom there is an abundance of criticism. You will find

in the kutub of Asmaaur Rijaal that he is depicted as a

destroyer of the Deen, and in the Ummah he is portrayed as if

he is like Abdullah Bin Saba’ in the plot to deracinate Islam. On

the other hand among the Ruwaat will be found an enemy of

the Deen from the extremist Mu’tazilis and the perpetrators of

Tashayyu’ and Rifdh (Shi’ism) and evil bid’ah. However,

despite all of this the Muhadditheen had authenticated his

narrations.”

(Nukhabul Afkaar Sharh Ma-aanil Aathaar—Imaam Badruddin

Al-Aini)

Naming the Tablighi doctor who had acquitted himself

disgustingly in the public by belittling and scorning the

Sunnah, is not different from a Muhaddith labelling a

Raawi as ‘Kath-thaab’, Shaitaan, Dajjaal, Himaar

(Donkey), etc. Naming the narrator with the

designations of liar, fraudster, fabricator, etc. is for

the sake of the Deen of the people. Similarly, naming

the gustaakh doctor who shamelessly denigrated the

Sunnah is in the interests of the Deen. The one who

insults the Sunnah is not only a mudhil. He hovers on

the brink of irtidaad. He should renew his Kalimah

and Nikah. He has to make Taubah.


20

Whilst this misguided moron student takes umbrage

because the critic of the Sunnah was named, he remains

blind to the fact that Rasulullah’s Sunnah was publicly

and audaciously assailed. He is not concerned with the

fact that the Sunnah was scorned. He is concerned with

the vindication of the culprit who had publicly insulted

the Sunnah. He should examine his Imaan. He is hurt

because the criminal was named, and he audaciously

comes out in support of the gustaakh, but he is not hurt

at the insult of the Sunnah. Something is amiss with this

chap’s Imaan. He should engage in Muraaqabah and

Muhaasabah to detect and apprehend the thief lurking

in his heart. It is ironic that the fellow who has

scrounged from the internet random citations from the

Qur’aan and Ahaadith lacks sufficient love for the

Sunnah.

With considerable puerility, the student says: “The

Qur’aan did not mention the names of all the deviates.”

Firstly, by implication he concedes that the names of

some deviates were mentioned, hence he says: ‘all the

deviates”. The mention of some names suffices for the

correctness of our stance. Secondly, his ‘ijtihaad’ is

corrupt. Abstention from mentioning the names in the

Qur’aan, may not be construed as a prohibition. The

Qur’aan abstains from mentioning even the five Fardh

Salaat, the raka’ts and thousands of imperative masaa-il.

In this averment this fellow is emulating the modernist

zanaadaqah who have the satanic penchant of rejecting

the Ahkaam on the basis of the fallacy that such ahkaam

are not in the Qur’aan. His argument here is plain

stupidity and fallacious.


21

On the basis of his stupid ‘ijtihad’, the student avers:

“The methodology of the Qur’an is to impart lessons,

not to name and shame every single deviate.” He

cunningly leaves a window open to jump out from a

predicament, hence he restricts the ‘methodology’,

with ‘not every single deviate’, which is in fact an

acknowledgment that some deviates are named. Even if

it be assumed or hallucinated that the Qur’aan does not

mention the name of a single deviate, it will be the

effect of jahaalat to contend that naming and shaming

a mudhil or a zindeeq who poses a danger for the Imaan

and Akhlaaq of Muslims, is not permissible.

This argument is like the Christian missionary’s

contention that ‘Jesus’ is superior to Muhammad

(Sallallahu alayhi wasalam) because while Muhammad

is mentioned only four times in the Qur’aan, ‘Jesus’ is

mentioned more than 20 times. Such silly ‘dalaa-il’ are

not befitting the Ahl-e-Ilm, especially of one who

pretends to be a ‘mujtahid’. Furthermore, the Qur’aan

Majeed while being the primary source of the Ahkaam,

is not the only source. Also, the Mufassireen have

mentioned the names of the deviates who come within

the scope of the Qur’aanic Aayaat.

The objective of naming a shaitaan or an agent of

shaitaan is not necessarily to shame him. In fact, it is

extremely rare that the objective is to shame him. The

objective in naming a mudhil or a zindeeq and the like

is to save people from the dhalaal which the

miscreant propagates. In terms of the logic of the paper

‘mujtahid’ it was not permissible to name and shame


22

Gulam Ahmad Mirza, nor Maudoodi, nor Parvez, nor

Sir Sayyid nor the numerous agents of Iblees whom the

Akaabeer have named without the intention of shaming

them. The niyyat is always to save the masses.

Since the student appears to flaunt ‘ilm’ by citing

from his internet references unrelated matter, we advise

that he should read Faislahkun Munaathara of Maulana

Manzoor No’maani (Rahmatullah alayh) to educate

himself on the issue of ‘naming and shaming’. He shall

see the names conspicuously spelt out to forewarn the

Ummah of the Mudhil Bid’ati, Ahmad Raza of Barelwi.

The student should render himself a further favour by

reading Hadhrat Maulana Khalil Ahmad’s Baraahin-e-

Qaatiah from which he will gain more information

about the science of naming minus the idea of shaming.

The student should edify himself with the episodes of

naming and shaming which Rasulullah (Sallallahu

alayhi wsallam) executed on the day of Fatah Makkah

when several persons, including two women were

beheaded despite offering repentance. Their crimes of

having insulted Rasulullah (Sallalahu alayhi wasallam)

were considered unforgivable.

Realizing the invalidity of his ‘ijtihaadi’ half-a-leg

concept of ‘naming and shaming’, he attempts to slink

out from the imbroglio by saying: “The Mufassireem

have named some of the Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu

anhum) who committed errors. However, this was not

done to shame them………So these incidents cannot be

cited to support the practice of naming and shaming.”

On what basis does this chap contend that we had


23

named the gustaakh tablighi doctor with the intention

of ‘shaming’? What is his daleel for this slander? Did

he receive perhaps wahi or kashf or ilhaam to confirm

his hallucination that the intention underlying our

mention of the miscreant tablighi doctor was to ‘shame’

him? The irrefutable fact which he reluctantly

concedes is that the Mufassireen did adopt the practice

of naming. They did not name just ‘some’. They

adopted this practice in every case if the name was

known.

Furthermore, from whence did he scrounge the fact

that we had supported any of our naming exercises with

the incidents he has mentioned? This fellow revels in

imagination, hence he has hallucinated that the basis for

naming the character who had insulted the Sunnah with

his attitude of istikhfaaf and rejection, was the

incidents of Sahaabah errors mentioned by the

Mufassireen. His conclusion is stupid and baseless. We

did not attempt to emulate the Mufassireen in naming

and damning the denigrator of the Sunnah. We merely

discharged the duty of Amr Bil Ma’roof, and the

manner of our acquittal is perfectly permissible.

The miscreant student mentions some episodes of

Sahaabah who had erred and were forgiven and

honoured. It is necessary that this chap, if he has

completed his stint at a Madrasah, should return and

spend more time in mutaala-ah under supervision of

Ustaadhs to learn the correct mode of intellectual

application. Currently he misapplies his brains to

stumble on stupid, irrelevant and baseless conclusions.

What relationship does he discern between the


24

honourable Sahaabah and the deviate tablighi doctor

who scorned the Sunnah? Did these Sahaabah whom the

Mufassireen had named for their errors, criticize the

Sunnah? Did any of them treat the Sunnah with the

attitude of Istikhfaaf and Istihzaa’ ? Their errors were

plain human errors which cannot be classified as acts of

dhalaal enacted to mislead and misguide. Nevertheless,

despite their errors not being any where near to the

kufr uttered by the tablighi doctor, they were still

named. Even from this angle, there is greater

justification to name the one who denigrated the

Sunnah.

The procrastination of the three Sahaabah who had

lagged behind on the occasion of the Jihad campaign

was not an act calculated to scorn or belittle any Sunnah.

They had committed an error of judgment for which

they were loudly named and severely shamed to the

extent that the punishment proscribed contact with

even their wives. It is a classical example of valid

naming and shaming for a personal error of judgment

which was, in the circumsances, unforgivable without

the application of the prior punishment of naming and

shaming. They were subjected to great stress and grief

by the process of naming and shaming which Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had imposed on them. The

student who has grown a bit big for his boots should

reflect on this episode which he himself has cited as

‘daleel’. His reflection, if sincere, will convince him of

the apodallic nature of his stupid and baseless daleel

which he has presented in vindication of the culprit

who had denigrated and belittled the Sunnah of

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in public. The


25

tablighi doctor had verbally and practically disparaged

and scorned the Sunnah.

The irony of the matter is that whilst this student

vindicates the doctor on the basis of his hallucination of

the prohibition of even valid naming and shaming, he

recedes into silence regarding the haraam naming and

shaming practised by the vile tablighi doctor when he

saw the brother sitting on the ground to eat in Sunnah

style. In the presence of the crowd, the miscreant doctor

insulted and belittled the brother who had not even

ventured to offer naseehat on the haraam practice of

devouring food like the kuffaar from tables and sitting

on chairs. Why does this unfortunate student have no

words of advice and criticism for the tablighi doctor

who had terribly shamed the brother who was sitting on

the ground? Why does this chap not compile an article

for the edification of the doctor who had scorned and

belittled the Sunnah, then compounded his major sin by

disgustingly shaming the brother? The hollowness of

the ‘ilm’ and the corruption of the niyyat of this student

are quite palpable from his attitude of defending the

denigrator of the Sunnah and shaming and castigating

the upholder of the Sunnah. He should check his

Imaan. He is on the path of zanaadaqah.

Perhaps he is aware of the episode of Hadhrat Huzaifah

(Radhiyallahu anhu) who had picked up a morsel of

food which had slipped from his hand onto the ground.

When he was about to eat it after picking it up, he was

advised by a companion to refrain from this action since

it will bring them in disrepute in the eyes of the

Christian king of Irbal and his courtiers who were all


26

present at the meal. The vociferous response of Hadhrat

Huzaifah (Radhiyallahu anhu) was: “Should I abandon

the Sunnah of my Beloved for the sake of these

ignoramuses (humaqaa’)?”

This was the attitude of the Sahaabah towards the

Sunnah of the Beloved (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). But

this wayward student cannot find space in his heart to

defend this Sunnah. On the contrary, he has abundant

energy, time and fervour to darken many pages with

legless and fallacious ‘dalaa-il’ to defend the one who

insulted the Sunnah, and to criticize the one who upheld

the Sunnah. Something is drastically wrong with the

thinking of this chap. He is in fact joining the camp of

the Mudhilleen.

What is conspicuously established by the episode of

procrastination of the three Sahaabah which he himself

has cited, is the validity of naming and shaming when

this becomes imperative for the sake of Allah Ta’ala, for

the sake of the Deen and for protecting the masses from

the dhalaalah of the zanaadaqah and the denigrators of

the Sunnah. This naming and shaming are substantiated

by the explicit Nusoos of the Qur’aan and Ahaadith

which shall be presented further on in this discussion,

Insha-Allah.

Then the fellow cites the incident of Hadhrat Maa-iz

(Radhiyallahu anhu) on whom the Hadd of Rajm was

executed. What resemblance or relationship is there

between this episode and the deliberate insulting and

denigration of Rasulullah’s practice of eating on the

ground? What basis is there in the episode of this


27

Sahaabi for contending that it was improper to name the

insulter of the Sunnah?

Furthermore, the chap is too dim to understand that

despite the fact that Hadhrat Maaiz (Radhiyallahu

anhyu) had not insulted the Sunnah, but had fallen

victim to the nafs in a private act of sin which he

himself confessed to, he was publicly named and

shamed. That being publicly executed by means of

Rajm for the heinous sin of zina is in fact a terrible act

of naming and shaming, is undeniable. The shame was

so much emphasized that it constrained Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to caution and warn the

Sahaabah to desist from defaming and perpetuating the

shaming. Nevertheless, even this private sin which had

absolutely no aspect of dhalaalah, was considered valid

for naming and shaming.

To remove the cobwebs which are stagnating the

thinking process of this student, we re-iterate that none

of these episodes have been proffered as the basis for

naming the miscreant, vile tablighi doctor who has

insulted the Sunnah and who to this day remains

unrepentant in his act of kufr.

The student then stupidly avers:

“Furthermore, the munafiqin in the time of Rasulullah

were kuffar, They were munafiqin in belief, not just in

practice., They had no Iman in them. They had no

honour. So naming and shaming them is not a problem.

But to name and shame Muslims who we consider

deviates is a totally different practice.”


28

The Mufassireen did name those who had Imaan in

them. The Ulama of the Salaf did label severely those

who had Imaan in them, and on issues unrelated to

Aqeedah as shall be shown later, Insha-Allah.

This fellow is ignorant. He just does not understand the

drivel he blurts out. Firstly, it was not the practice to

name and shame even the munafiqeen, hence Hadhrat

Huzaifah is designated as Saahib-e-Sirr. Whilst he was

aware of the names of all the munaafiqeen, the senior

Sahaabah such as even Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu

anhu) were unaware. Their names were kept secret

subject to Divine Command and Wisdom. While

sincere Sahaabah were named and shamed for their

misdeeds and errors of judgment, the vast majority of

munaafiqeen was spared the disgrace of naming and

shaming them. This illogical command may not be cited

in substantiation of the baseless theory spawned by the

paper ‘mujtahid’. If there had been no problem in

naming and shaming munaafiqeen, their names would

not have been held in secret by command of Allah

Ta’ala.

Furthermore, there is the grave probability of hidden

nifaaq lurking in the heart of one who denigrates the

Sunnah or treats the Sunnah with an attitude of

Istikhfaaf. The tablighi doctor should therefore beware,

and the student should make him aware of this distinct

probability of nifaaq which may have been the

springboard for his tirade against the Sunnah.

Once the Khalifah Haroun Rashid slipped incognito in

the Hadith dars of the Muhaddith Yahyah Bin Ma-een.


29

The Muhaddith recited the Hadith: “Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) loved dubbaa’ (marrow).”

Someone from the gathering commented: “I don’t love

dubbaa.” The Khalifah was unable to restrain his rage

at what he understood as the denigration of the Sunnah.

He revealed himself and vociferously and repeatedly

said: “The leather and the sword! The leather and the

sword! The zindeeq is denigrating the Hadith of

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam).” It was only

the pleading of the Muhaddith which saved the life of

the commentator. This upstart paper ‘mujtahid’ should

understand that denigrating the Sunnah is not an

insignificant issue, and that defending the one who

insults the Sunnah makes him complicit with the

insulter in the act of denigrating the Sunnah.

The student stupidly avers: “Another significant reason

why the Mufassireen mentioned the names of the

munafiqin and some of the Sahaabah Radhiyallu anhum

who erred was to protect the honour of the other

Sahaabah Radhiyallahu anhum.”

In this statement the fellow concedes the validity of

naming persons. The rationale for such naming

according to him was to protect the honour of other

Sahaabah. Regardless of the rationale, the validity of

naming is established. As for the rationale, what is his

daleel for claiming or believing that our motive was

malafide? Did he receive wahi? We state with emphasis

that our motive in naming the culprit tablighi doctor

was to protect the honour of Rasulullah (Sallallahu

alayhi wasallam) and his Sunnah. The criminal who had

flagitiously insulted the Sunnah is solely the cause of


30

bringing shame on himself. There was an imperative

need and obligation to name the miscreant regardless

of the concomitant shame which accompanied the

naming motivated by the desire to vindicate the Sunnah.

The miscreant student says: “Had the Mufassireen not

done what they had, the Shiah would have accused the

other Sahabah Radhiyallahu anhum unjustly.”

We too say that had we not done what we had, then

denigration of the Sunnah and abandoning the Sunnah

would become accepted as valid Firstly, the Shiah still

accuse, slander and vilify almost all the Sahaabah

unjustly to this day. This statement is irrelevant to the

topic of discussion. The act of naming by the

Mufassireen did not prevent the Shiah from their kufr

and slander. The naming by the Mufassireen was simply

the recording of historical data for better

comprehension of the Qur’aanic aayaat. Furthermore,

the attitude of the Mufassireen substantiates our

practice of naming. The Mufassireen had their reasons

and we have our reasons which are valid in terms of the

Shariah.

The student has attempted a moronic dismissal of the

tafseer of the aayat pertaining to the episode of Hadhrat

Walid Bin Uqbah (Radhiyallahu anhu). In fact, this

student appears to be a moron, hence he dismally and

moronically and abortively labours to rubbish the

tafseer which the Mufassireen proffer of Aayat 6 of

Surah Hujuraat. At least we have the certitude that the

Mufassireen were not paper ‘mujtahids’ such as this

upstart student. His attempt to dismiss authoritative


31

tafseer of the Aayat by acquitting himself as an ‘expert’

of Hadith is downright stupid and conceited.

He seeks to condemn the tafseer by reference to the

Isnaad. Should we embark on the rubbish of his

expertise in the sphere of Usool-e-Hadith, this brief

refutation will develop into a voluminous treatise. But

for the present we do not deem it worthy to embark on

such a venture for the dismissal of the drivel of the

paper ‘mujtahid’.

Furthermore, the mention of this Aayat by this fellow is

a stupid superfluity which neither supports his

contention nor our stance because the Aayat does not

name any specific person. However, fearing that we

may derive support from the explicit mention of the

name of the Sahaabi by the Mufassireen, the fellow

deemed it expedient to preampt us, just in case we do

cite the tafseer of this Aayat which in fact was the

furthest from our minds.

That the Qur’aan in this aayat describes Hadhrat Walid

Bin Utbah (Radhiyallahu anhu) as a ‘faasiq’ according

to the Mufassireen, is not cause for consternation. The

Speaker is Allah Azza Wa Jal. He has all the authority to

address His makhlooq as He deems appropriate. Allah

Ta’ala explicitly said to Nabi Nooh (Alayhis salaam):

“Do not be among the jaahileen.” He was among the

great Ambiya. He was not a jaahil. He was specifically

selected by Allah Azza Wa Jal to be a great Nabi. The

idea of Hadhrat Nooh (Alayhis salaam) being among

the jaahileen or becoming among them was Mahaal-e-

Aadi (practically impossible). Despite this reality, Allah


32

Azza Wa Jal addressed Nabi Nooh (Alayhis salaam) in

the manner in which He deemed proper, and no one has

the right to open his mouth to vent any doubt

whatsoever in the integrity of this great Nabi. Similary,

the Qur’aanic designation of ‘faasiq’ which by

implication was a reference to Hadhrat Walid Bin

Uqbah (Radhiyalahu anhu) does not entitle anyone to

label him a faasiq.

The Mufassireen mentioned the episode not to predicate

fisq for Hadhrat Walid (Radhiyallahu anhu). The

episode was cited as the Shaan-e-Nuzool of the Aayat.

In addition, it will be salutary for the paper ‘mujtahid’ to

understand that the Qur’aanic Aayaat are timeless for

application. A principle which is applicable to all times

until Qiyaamah is evolved on the basis of the generality

of the Aayat whose purport is not story-telling. The

aayat was never meant to confirm fisq for Hadhrat

Walid Bin Utbah (Radhiyallahu anhu).

The Qur’aan Majeed reprimands Rasulullah (Sallallahu

alayhi wasallam) with severity in several places. It is

the Khaaliq speaking to and about His makhlooq.

These Divine Reprimands do not detract one iota from

the dignity and lofty status of Rasulullah (Sallallahu

alayhi wasallam). The attempt to dismiss the tafseer of

the authoritative Mufassireen who named the august

personalities who were criticized by Allah Azza Wa Jal

for their errors, simply displays the jahaalat of the

student who bites off more than what he is able to chew.

Tripping over his own stupidity and damning his own

theory of naming and shaming, the paper ‘mujtahid’


33

seeking support from authorities cites Ibn Hajar who

says: “….al-Kalbi, regarding whom Ibn Hajar said: ‘

He is regarded as one of the Shiah of Kufah. There

were two liars in Kufah, one of whom was al-Kalbi, and

the other was al-Suddi.”

We think that this paper ‘mijtahid’ should apply his

silly naming and shaming principle uniformly and

desist from the application of double standards. Did Ibn

Hajar not name and shame the two ‘liars of Kufah’?

What was the need to name and shame them? Why did

Ibn Hajar not adopt the principle which this miscreant

paper ‘mujtahid’ has evoloved? Why did Ibn Hajr flout

the naseehat of the Qur’aan and Hadith by naming and

shaming the two?

Since there was an imperative need to name and shame

the deviates in order to save people from misguidance,

Ibn Hajar merely discharged an obligation, and so did

we when the miscreant tabighi doctor was named. As

for the aspect of ‘shame’, he had brought shame upon

himself by his public outburst against the Sunnah of

Rasllullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The fact that

Ibn Hajar had named and shamed the two narrators with

insulting epithets, is support for our stance, not for the

moron paper ‘mujtahid’ who contends that it is not

permissible to name and shame deviates.

The moron advertising his jahaalat, avers: “Just

consider, you actually believed that a Sahaabi

Radhiyallahu anhu was called a fasiq in the Qur’an.

Imagine how dangerous this is for our Iman!”


34

Jahaalat is dangerous. Who committed this ‘danger’

mentioned by the miscreant? All the Mufassirreen from

the era of the Sahaabah to this day should be accused of

having committeed “something dangerous for their

Imaan”. This is precisely what the moron implies with

his comment. To name the Sahaabi in the context of

the Aayat is “something dangerous for our Imaan” says

the miscreant student. But no one besides the illustrious

Mufassireen and the Ulama of the Salaf had sustained

the mention of the Sahaabi’s name in the context of the

Aayat. He fails to understand that he has cast grave

aspersions of the Imaan of the Salafus Saaliheen with

his statement uttered without application of the mind.

There is not a single Mu’min whose Imaan is secure

who will venture the thought of the Sahaabi being a

faasiq since Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasalam) had

said that all his Sahaabah are Udool. There is not a

single Mu’min whose brains have not become

convoluted with kufr ideologies who will ever think

that Nabi Nooh (Alayhis salaam) was among the

‘jaahileen’, despite this explicit mention in the Qur’aan.

Admonishing Nabi Daawood (Alayhis salaam), Allah

Ta’ala says: “O Daawood! Verily, We have made you

the Khalifah on earth, therefore adjudicate between

people with the Haqq and do not follow vain desire, for

then it will mislead you from the Path of Allah. Verily,

those who stray from the Path of Allah, for them there is

a severe punishment because they forgot the Day of

Reckoning.”


35

Can any Mu’min believe that this great Nabi chosen by

Allah Ta’ala Himsef will follow his vain desires,

adjudicate unjustly and stray from the Path of Allah

because he had forgotten the Day of Qiyaamah? Anyone

who ventured such kufr, was threatened with a 100

lashes by Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu). Despite

this, Allah Azza Wa Jal addressed His Nabi in this

manner. It was the address of Khaaliq to His

makhlooq.

Cautioning Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam),

Allah Ta’ala says: “Do not divert your eyes from them

(the Fuqara) intending the adornment of this worldly

life, and do not follow the one whose heart We have

made forgetful of Our Thikr…”

Does any Mu’min believe on the basis of this severe

Qur’aanic caution that there was the possibility of

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) giving

preference to the wealthy and arrogant mushrikeen

thereby ignoring the Fuqara Sahaabah? There is not a

single Muslim in whose mind this kufr will even cross.

Despite the impossibility, Allah Azza Wa Jal speaks

reprimandingly to Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) in a number of Aayaat.

Just as submission to vain desires, fisq and fujoor are

negated from the Ambiya, so too, is fisq negated from

the Sahaabah, hence no one believes in the fisq of

Hadhrat Walid (Radhiyallahu anhu) notwithstanding the

Shaan-e-Nuzool of the aayat. Only morons draw such

corrupt conclusions on the basis of their smattering of

text-book knowledge.


36

The chap asks: “Would you appreciate if I labelled you

an ignoramus, a kafir, etc. and spread the message in

the whole world, due to your lack of knowledge of this

vital tahqiq?..........So why do we not act the same with

our Muslim brothers……”

If you are a man of the Haqq, which obviously you are

not, and you find us propagating kufr, baatil, bid’ah ,

Istikhfaaf of the Ahkaam, and denigration of the Sunnah

in the public, then by all means it will be your Waajib

obligation to label us as ignoramuses, mudhilleen,

zanaadiqah and kuffaar.

Secondly, your statement is stupid in its

presumptuousness. What ‘vital tahqiq’ are you

hallucinating about? Are you labouring under the

impression that you are the sole respository of this ‘vital

tahqiq’? Your flimsy ‘tahqiq’ is simply a cut and paste

job from the immoral internet. The superficiality of

your ‘tahqiq’ speaks volumes for your jahaalat. We

discern no vitality in your cut and paste jobs. On what

basis have you concluded that we “lack knowledge of

the vital tahqiq” with which you are patting yourself on

the back? From whence did you glean this idea? There

was no incumbency to introduce this dimension in our

criticism of the miscreant tablighi anti-Sunnah

character. You have therefore spoken utter trash by

implying that you are the sole originator of the

imagined ‘vital tahqiq’. It will serve you good to

emerge from your hallucinatory realm of deception. It is

scraping the bottom of the barrel to lap up a ‘tahqiq’

from the internet, then attribute it to yourself. That is

contemptible plagiarism.


37

In response to your question: “So why do we not act the

same with our Muslim brothers?” The character who

maligns the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) is not our brother. He belongs to some camp

of deviation. We refuse to embrace him with love when

he chides, ridicules and denigrates the Sunnah. We were

not dealing with an ordinary sinner – all of us are

sinners. We were dealing with a shaitaan in human form

donning the mantle of the Tablighi Jamaat. So, desist

from stercoraceous acquittal, then you shall not be

assigned to the camp of the copro mudhilleen.

Then this character introduces a Hadith of general

import which has absolutely no relevance to the topic

under discussion. The Hadith he cites is: “None of you

believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for

himself.” The moron has failed to understand the

meaning of “brother”. The one who deserves

execution for denigrating the Sunnah is not a brother to

us. He is an enemy. Any one who scorns the Sunnah by

actively propagating it and by denigrating it in public is

shaitaan or at least the agent of Iblees. How can such a

vile character be our brother? Such an enemy of the

Sunnah is excluded from the scope of the Hadith.

Further darkening the pages with his stupidity, the

moron paper ‘mujtahid’, rejecting the tafseer of the vast

majority of authoritative Mufassireen on the basis of the

internet ‘tahqiq’, disgorges the following rubbish: “Is

the famous incident about Sayyiduna Tha’labah Ibn

Hatib (Radhiyallahu anhu) asking Nabi (Sallallahu

alayhi wasallam) to make dua Allah Ta’ala increases


38

his wealth and him not paying zakah after becoming

wealthy authentic?

Answer - Despite the narration being widely quoted, it

is unauthentic and not suitable to quote…..”

The refutation for this baseless claim will follow later,

Insha-Allah. This piece of drivel, the miscreant student

molvi acquired from the internet ‘tahqiq’. He lapped it

up and disgorged it as if it is his own ‘tahqiq’

(research).

Shaitaan has corrupted the brains of this moron. The

very fame (Shuhrat) and acceptability by the authorities

of the narration is the daleel for its authenticity. Hadhrat

Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi, Mufti Muhammad Shafi

and others of our Akaabir Ulama and all the classical

Mufassireen present this narration in the tafseer of the

aayat No.75 of Surah Taubah. Ibn Jareer, Ibn Abi

Haatim, Ibn Mardawaih, Tabaraani, Baihqi and other

great Mufassireen have all upheld the authenticity of the

narration which features in the tafseer of the aayat. The

list shall follow later, Insha-Allah.

Firstly, the moron stupidly introduces this aayat and its

tafseer into the discussion which have no relationship

whatsoever with our topic. There was no need to bring

it into the picture. We did not touch on it, and there is

nothing of the tafseer which we had presented as daleel

for our stance. Despite this being a digression from the

subject, we shall nevertheless, briefly touch on the

stupidity illustrated by the upstart paper ‘mujtahid’.

The irrefutable fact is that the person mentioned in the

Qur’aanic aayat who had come to Rasulullah (Sallallahu

alayhi wasallam) was a Sahaabi. Whether he was


39

Tha’labah Ibn Abi Haatib or any one else is irrelevant.

But since the vast majority of Mufassirren have accepted

the narration pertaining to Tha’labah, there is no reason

to unnecessarily refute it. If there had been a valid

reason, the great Mufassireen would not have

entertained it without critical comment. While this

fellow is a moron he seeks by implication to label the

Mufassireen as morons who lacked knowledge in the

sphere of Tafseer and Usool-e-Tafseer. The Qur’aan

confirms that the person was a munaafiq.

Sahaabi: An objection may be raised regarding the

‘Sahaabi’ status of the one to whom reference is made

in the Aayat. The Qur’aan explicitly states that nifaaq is

confirmed. The response to the objection is that the

Aayat is ambiguous regarding the identity of the person

involved in this episode. Furthermore, the Aayat

predicates the nifaaq to a plurality of persons. Thus, it

is said: “Then He (Allah) established nifaaq in their

hearts.”

In the Tafseer of these Aayaat, a plurality of persons is

mentioned. It is not restricted to one person. Another

noteworthy fact is that Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat

Umar and Hadhrat Uthmaan (Radhiyallahu anhum),

during the tenure of their respective khilaafats, did not

brand Tha’labah a munaafiq. They had only refused to

accept his Sadqah because Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) had refused, and they had clarified the

reason for their refusal. If Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) had accepted his Sadqaat, the Khulafa too

would have accepted it without hesitation.


40

If the nifaaq mentioned in the Aayat had applied

specifically to Tha’labah, then his kufr/irtidaad would

have been confirmed. The consequence would have

been his execution. However, he continued to live as a

Muslim, and so was he treated during the era of the

Khulafah-e-Raashideen until his death during the

khilaafat of Hadhrat Uthmaan (Radhiyallah anhu).

Furthermore, Rasulullah (Salallahu alayhi wasallam)

had understood and had accepted him as a Sahaabi,

hence Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) made the Dua

for him. And, even after having refused to accept

Tha’labah’s Sadqaat, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) did not brand him a munaafiq/murtad. He

continued living as a Muslim even while Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was alive.

Since there is no Qat’iyat (absolute certitude) on this

issue, it will be improper to acquit oneself with such

certitude which is the effect of Qat’iyat. The matter

should be left with the ambiguity conferred to it by the

Qur’aan Majeed. And Allah knows best.

What has anyway emerged from this narration in our

favour is the fact that the Mufassireen who were

embodiments of Taqwa and paragons of Ilm,

considered the practice of naming to be valid, hence

they mentioned the name of the person whom the

relevant Qur’aanic aayat castigates. It matters not

whether the person was Tha’labah or anyone else. The

fact is that a name is mentioned by the Mufassireen.

This debunks the stupid theory of the moron student.


41

Since the scope of this refutation precludes a detailed

discussion to establish the identity of the person

concerned, we shall not here proceed further with this

irrelevant topic.

Presenting another baseless argument, the chap says

that after the revelation of the names of the

Munaafiqeen, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)

“would name the hypocrites”. Then he adds: “So by no

means does this text support the practice of naming and

shaming.” In fact, by all means it does support our

practice, and this is a self-evident fact. Furthermore, we

at no stage had presented this Hadith to substantiate the

validity of ‘naming and shaming’ a munaafiq or a

mudhil or a zindeeq or an agent of Iblees who

disparages the Sunnah. So we do not understand the

stupid ‘rationale’ for making reference to this

narration.

Secondly, the existence of the narration despite another

narration which informs that the names were entrusted

to only Hadhrat Huzaifah (Radhiyallahu anhu),

provides a basis for naming and shaming the

munaafiqeen. The narration explicitly states:

“Then Allah Ta’ala informed Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) of (the names of the) munaafiqeen. Thereafter

he would call by name a man from the munaafiqeen.”

Thus, by unnecessarily introducing this irrelevant

narration, the chap has shot himself in the foot.

Then he attempts to negate the validity of naming a

deviate by citing such Qur’aanic verses and Ahaadith


42

which are of general import, and which mention the

beautiful moral character of Rasulullah (Sallallahu

alayhi wasallam). In so doing, he abortively attempts to

show that the Uswah Hasanah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu

alayhi wasallam) was in entirety devoid of sternness

and harshness. Where there was the need for severity,

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would display

such severity which would send shivers down the spines

of the Sahaabah. Some such instances are briefly

mentioned here:

The narration of the Urniyyeen.

The treatment to Banu Quraidhah.

The execution of some males and females on the

occasion of Fatah Makkah, even of the one

holding onto the ghilaaf of the Ka’bah and

begging for mercy.

Despatching Sahaabah to carry out acts of

assassination.

Ordering the whipping and stoning of certain

Sahaabah.

Ordering cutting the hand of a noble lady who

had stolen.

On occasions cursing the Kuffaar.

Ordering a man to be burnt out although this

order was later rescinded.

Complimenting the blind Sahaabi who had killed

his wife because she had insulted Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasalam).

Advising a woman to slap her husband in

retaliation. But Allah Ta’ala then prohibited

this.

Calling a person ‘Shaitaan’.


43

Rasulullah’s desire to burn out the houses of

those who do not attend Jamaat Salaat. And

many more episodes of Ta’neef.

This brief list of severity and harshness adopted by

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) should suffice

to debunk the one-sided presentation of his Uswah

Hasanah by the misguided student. The beautiful

moral character of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) did not preclude severity and harshness

wherever such attitude was deemed correct and

appropriate.

While the Qur’aan Majeed advises Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to be kind, merciful and

forgiving, it also commands: “And be stern against

them.” While Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)

has been described in the Qur’aan as “A Mercy to the

worlds”, he has also been commanded to “kill them

wherever they are found”.

In a failed attempt to extract capital for his stupid

‘theory’, the misguided student presents the commentary

of Ibn Hajar and Imaam Nawawi on the reaction of

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) on the occasion

when a rustic urinated in the Musjid. When the ignorant

villager had urinated in the Musjid, Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), without displaying the

slightest annoyance, explained the error to the person.

The student molvi presented the following commentary

of Ibn Hajar and Imaam Nawawi, which he lapped up

from the internet ‘tahqiq’:


44

“Ibn Hajar said: ‘In it is consideration for the jaahil

(ignoramus), and teaching him what is incumbent for

him without severity, when it is not because of

intransigence……”

“Nawawi said: ‘In it is consideration for the jaahil,

and to teach him without harshness and distress what is

incumbent on him when he commits the act (of

ignorance) without mukhaalafah (opposition) or

istikhfaaf (denigration) or inaad (intransigence)……..”

The translation is ours. The incompetent student molvi

restricted himself to the Atabic text which he plagiarized

from the internet.

It is clear that this poor fellow lacks understanding of

the texts he presents to bolster his opinion. There is no

gainsaying that ta’leem and tableegh should

incumbently be with wisdom, kindness and

consideration of the one to whom the naseehat is made.

This is standard procedure. This is the general

methodology, and no one is in abnegation of it.

However, the student molvi has failed to understand

that the objective of rifq bil jaahil (tenderness/kindness

with the ignoramus when teaching him) is Ta’leem.

When this is not the objective other methods are not

only justified, but exhorted and incumbent.

When the purpose of naming and shaming is punishment

or execution or exposing the devil or saving people

from the danger of misguidance of the agent of Iblees,

then rifq bil jaahil is not permissible. At such a time it

will be stupid or bootlicking or compromising the Haqq

or concealing the Haqq as is the habit of the Dumb

Devils. Thus, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)


45

said: “He who remains silent regarding the Haqq is a

dumb devil.” The purpose of rifq bil jaahil is not to

transform one into a dumb devil nor to conceal the Haqq

nor to tolerate Istikhfaaf and Istihzaa’ with the Sunnah.

For such evil, the other dimension of Rasulullah’s

Uswah Hasanah is applicable, namely Ta’neef

(severity/harshness) as was practically demonstrated by

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the

Sahaabah.

While rifq is valid and necessary when advising and

admonishing a simple rustic or any other normal person

who commits errors out of ignorance, it is not

permissible when confronted by the mukhaalif, mu-

aanid, mudhil, zindeeq and the like whose anti-Sunnah

act or act of zanaadaqah or act of istikhfaaf is

deliberate. It is designed by inaad and by scorn for the

Sunnah. And, this is made crystal clear by Imaam

Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, the Sunnah, the Qur’aan and the

entire body of the Mashaaikh whose obligation was

Ta’leem, Tableegh, Da’wat and Islaah of the nafs. But

intellectual density has precluded this student molvi

from this comprehension. Whilst he quotes Ibn Hajar

and Imaam Nawawi, he appears to be too dense in the

skull to understand the conditions mentioned by these

Imaams for the validity of rifq bil jaahil.

Imaam Nawawi and Ibn Hajar did not mention Rifq bil

jaahil in negation of Ta’neef. No authority of the

Shariah had ever ventured that Rifq was the sole

attitude of Rasulullah’s methodology. All the Qur’aanic

verses and Ahaadith narrations pertaining to tenderness

and kindness in admonition and advice, have been cited


46

out of context by the moron. It is not so much an issue

of him not being aware of the innumerable episodes of

ta’neef (severity/harshness) displayed by Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasalam) and the Sahaabah. The

oblique or squint-eyed vision with which he views the

noble Moral Character of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) is the effect of his insincerity, dishonesty and

lack-lustre attitude towards the Sunnah, hence he has

been swift to spring to the defence of the mu-aanid

tabligi doctor who had flagrantly and rudely

demonstrated in the public domain his disdain, scorn

and Istikhfaaf for the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu

alayhi wasallam). The moron student should understand

that wearing a big turban is not the be-all of the Sunnah.

He has no option but to concede Rasulullah’s severity

and naming and shaming of deviates, and because these

facets of Rasulullah’s Uswah Hasanah are so glaringly

conspicuous he is compelled to present some

convoluted misinterpretation, hence he says: “If

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasalam) did name some

deviates, this was done for a specific reason. But his

general overwhelming practice was to impart lessons

and not to name and shame.”

Why does the moron say “if” when he is fully aware of

the factual position that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) had employed ta’neef, not only for deviates,

but also for Sahaabah in general? Just as rifq is a part

of the Uswah Hasanah of Nabi-e-Kareem (Sallallahu

alayhi wasallam), so too is ta’neef integral to his

Uswah Hasanah. Once when Rasulullah (Sallallahu

alayhi wasallam) saw some expectoration on the Qiblah


47

wall of the Musjid, he went into a rage. The anger was

clearly visible on his mubaarak face. And he severely

(ta’neefan) reprimanded the Sahaabah.

The one with Ilmi discernment will not fail to see the

great disparity akin to a conundrum in the two episodes,

namely, the incident of the a’raabi urinating in the

Musjid in the presence of the Sahaabah, and the

expectoration on the Qiblah wall of the Musjid. Both

incidents were committed in the Musjid. Despite urine

being filth, and the act of public urinating and that too

right inside the Musjid being beyond the confines of

all concepts of decency, Rasulullah (Sallalahu alayhi

wasallam) reacted with rifq bil jaahil. On the other

hand, despite saliva being pure (not najis), and the act

of expectoration having no resemblance with the

indecency of urinating in the Musjid, Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) displayed great opprobrium

and ta’neef in his ta’leem to the Sahaabah for having

committed the error of spitting on the Qiblah wall.

A Student of Deen, especially if he chooses to comment

on Deeni subjects should have a panoptical view on

dalaa-il and on all angles of the subject. But this moron

has acquitted himself with a display of jahaalat which

is the satanic effect of the operoseness which he has

adopted in defending an enemy of the Sunnah –

laboriously misusing the Qur’aan and Ahaadith to

defend a deviate who had acquitted himself with Inaad

and Istikhfaaf of the very Sunnah predicated by the

Qur’aan and Ahaadith.


48

The methodology of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) consisted of both rifq and ta’neef. These

attitudes are applicable to different circumstances. Nabi

(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) imparted the lesson of both

Hub lillaah (Love for Allah’s Sake), and Bughd lillaah

(Anger for Allah’s sake). But morons lack the

understanding of differentiating and application.

Just as Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had a

“specific reason for naming deviates”, so too do we

have specific reasons for naming deviates, zindeeqs and

mudhilleen. We do not embark on criticism for fun and

amusement. Both methods of Rasulullah (Sallallahu

alayhi wasallam) – rifq and ta’neef – are for imparting

lessons. The moron due to his jahaalat has failed to

understand that there was a perfect balance between the

two opposite methodologies of Rasulullah (Sallallahu

alayhi wasallam). When there was a need for rifq, it

would be applied. When the need was for ta’neef , it

would not be spared. The exhortation of keeping a whip

at all times displayed in the home to act as a deterrent

to mischief and for the ta’leem of chidren, belongs to

the domain of Ta’neef. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) said: “Hang your whip in a way that your

family sees it.” The Ahaadith and the lives of the

Sahaabah are replete with episodes in which Ta’neef

was the mode.

Then the durrah (whip) of Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu

anhu) was famous. Everyone besides the moron, is

aware that it was never rifq which ensued from that

famous and noble durrah. We can imagine the action of

that durrah if it had encountered the agent of Iblees who


49

had scorned and denigrated the Sunnah of Rasulullah

(Sallallahun alayhi wasallam).

The moron student molvi attempts awkwardly to

extricate himself from the confusion of his stupid

theory which he himself does not understand, relative to

‘naming and shaming’ by saying: “So there was a

definite reason for this unusual practice of Rasulullah

Sallalahu alayhi wasalam. But his general practice was

to admonish as mentioned above.” This is the

imbecile’s comment on a particular person which

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) named and

shamed -- a person called Uyainah Bin Hisn. This

person had become a murtad. Explaining the reason for

naming and shaming this person, Ibn Hajar says:

“Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) intended to

expose the condition of this person so that the people

recognize him and so that those who are not aware of

him and do not become deceived by him.”

The student molvi despite presenting this commentary

of Ibn Hajar remains blissfully stupid of the reason for

exposing, naming and shaming practised by Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasllam). The specific reason was to

save the people from the deception of the agents of

Iblees. This is precisely the motivation which constrains

us to expose, name and even shame those whom we

consider to be the enemies of the Sunnah masquerading

as men of piety and knowledge.

His contention that ta’neef was not the normal/usual

practice of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is

baseless. He lacks understanding of Rasulullah’s


50

methodology, hence he speaks bunkum. Whenever

occasion demanded ta’neef, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) would employ it, and whenever there was no

need for it, rifq was the order. It is highly erroneous to

contend that ta’neef was not the usual practice. Ta’neef

may not be rubbished away simply because of the

greater number of cases and episodes involving rifq.

The issue is that ta’neef was invoked when the need

for it developed. The cases of urination and

expectoration explained earlier are well-known

examples of both facets of Rasulullah’s methodology.

But this moron student, due to jahaalat, presents a

lopsided picture of Rasulullah’s methodology from

which he abortively struggles to eliminate the vital

constituent of ta’neef.

Portraying his attitude of stupid pontification, the

misguided chap says: “Accordingly, our practice should

be to impart lessons, not to name and shame every

Muslim who we consider a deviate.” (Underlining for

emphasis is that of the moron)

This crack-pot paper ‘mujtahid’ is too dim in the brains

to understand that the objective of even ‘naming and

shaming’ is “to impart lesson”. It is not an exercise

for fun and amusement. If this chap does not consider a

deviate/zindeeq/enemy of the Sunnah to be so, and we

do, we are not bound to submit to his copro-principal

of jahaalat. When the need is to inform people of the

evil of the human devils, it devolves on us as an

obligation to proclaim the Haqq and to ensure that we

do not join the league of the “Dumb Devils”. While

denigration of the Sunnah is tolerable to the moron


51

‘mujtahid’, for us it is not. And that is the parting of the

ways for us. In naming and shaming those who have to

be incumbently named and shamed there is much lesson

and protection for the ignorant and unwary. Just as

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) named the

deviates who pose a danger to the Imaan of the unwary,

so too do we name those who beguile and mislead the

ignorant awaamun naas.

Since his stupid theory pertaining to naming and

shaming is thoroughly debunked and demolished by

the Jarah-Ta’deel practice of the illustrious

Muhadditheen who had spared no punches in

vehemently criticizing with pejorative epithets narrators

whom they considered deviates, liars, frauds and

fabricators, this misguided student-molvi says: “The

Muhadditheen had the practice of al-Jar wal Ta dil. This

was introduced to protect the pristine Din and the

Ahadith of Rasulullah Sallallahu alayhi wasallam.

There was a great necessity to do this since the Ahadith

of Rasulullah Sallallahu alayhi wasalam was the source

of the Shariah. It was therefore incumbent to protect it

from the interpretations of the deviates.”

O Jaahil! Is there no imperative need to protect the

Shariah and the Sunnah in this belated age in close

proximity to Qiyaamah? Is there no incumbent need to

protect the pristine Deen which is so horribly being

mutilated by the droves of human and jinn shayaateen

masquerading as men of learning and piety? Is there no

“great necessity” to protect the Shariah and the Sunnah

from the interpretations of the deviates?


52

O Moron ‘mujtahid’! Are you not aware that Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “There will ever

remain a Taaifah (a small group) in my Ummah until

the Day of Qiyaamah who will fight on the Haqq.

Those who oppose them and those who do not aid them

will not be able to harm them.”

The misguided fellow is unaware that Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that there will be such

Ulama until the Day of Qiyaamah who will resolutely

confront baatil, expose the fraud of the mudhilleen and

separate all the distortions and misinterpretations of the

dajjaals from the Deen to guard the pristine purity of

Islam. Now, how is it possible for us to maintain

silence, when the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu

alayhi wasallam) is being ruthlessly pillaged and

plundered by the innumerable mudhilleen and

zanadaqah in our midst, the tablighi doctor being one of

them?

Rifq is not the weapon with which to confront and

demolish satanic baatil and malicious denigration of

the Sunnah by persons claiming to be Muslims. In fact

Rifq is not even to be employed in every instance of

ta’leem for children, hence Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) said that if by the age of ten a child is not

regular with Salaat, he/she should be beaten – beaten,

not assaulted. There is a big difference.

The practice of Jarah-Ta’deel of the Muhadditheen is a

glittering daleel for the validity of the practice of

naming and shaming the enemies of the Sunnah to

protect the purity of the Deen.The Muhadditheen named


53

and shamed a person by predicating to his name

pejorative degrees such as liar, fraud, fabricator,

shaitaan, dajjaal, faasiq, donkey, etc. The tablighi

doctor who had denigrated the Sunnah in public is of

this breed of deviates who has to be incumbently named

and shamed. But Taubah will still save him. At times

the Muhadditheen would brand a reliable narrator with

the worst of epithets without having instituted an

investigation to ascertain the unreliability of the person.

They relied on what was reported to them. However,

when later the reality and the truth became manifest,

they would award accolades and speak glowing of the

very Aalim whom they had severely disparaged. Many

highly placed Ulama and Fuqaha were unjustly

maligned by other reliable Authorities of the Shariah.

Shall we now bring them within the purview of the

Qur’aanic Aayat warning us to refrain from

spontaneous acceptance of the information conveyed by

a ‘faasiq’? It is undoubtedly within the parameters of

the moron’s audacity to label the illustrious Ulama of

the Salaf who were experts in the distribution of

epithets which in their opinion and in the circumstances

were justified.

Digest the following narrative, and reflect:

Ibnul Fadhl < Ali Bin Ibraahim bin Shuaib Al-Ghaazi

< Muhammad Bin Ismaaeel Bukhaari (that is Imaam

Bukhaari) said that one of our companions narrated

from Hamdawaih who said: ‘I said to Muhammad Bin

Maslamah: ‘Why did the opinion (i.e.Math-hab) of An-

Nu’maan (i.e. Imaam Abu Hanifah – Rahmatullah


54

alayh) enter all cities except Madinah. Then he

(Muslimah) said: ‘Verily, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) said: ‘Neither Dajjaal nor a plague will be

able to enter Madinah.’ He (i.e. Imaam Abu Hanifah –

Rahmatullah alayh) is a dajjaal from among the

dajjaals.”

Ibnul Dashl < Ubaidullah Bin Ja’far Bin Durustwaih <

Ya’qoob Bin Sufyaan < Hasan Bin Sabaah < Ishaaq

Bin Ibraaheem Al-Haneeni said that Imaam Maalik

said:

“Never was there born in Islam a child who is more

harmful for the People of Islam than Abu Hanifah.”

The Dua, Rahmatullah alayh appearing in brackets

above are our insertions, not that of the narrators in the

chain. We shall present more specialities of the

science of naming and shaming, but for the sake of

brevity, the narrations shall be truncated by discarding

the Chains of Narrators.

* Imaam Maalik said: “The fitnah of Abu Hanifah on

this Ummah is worse than the fitnah of Iblees in two

ways: (1) In Irjaa’, and (2) in destroying the Sunnah.”

Here Imaam Maalik has accused Imaam Abu Hanifah

(Rahmatullah alayh) as an ‘enemy of the Sunnah’ to

whom he (Imaam Maalik) awarded the title of ‘Iblees’.

What title should be conferred to the tablighi doctor

who flagrantly and ruthlessly denigrated the Sunnah in

public?


55

Shareek Bin Abdullah said: “It is better that there be in

every suburb of Kufah one who sells liquor than one

who promotes the views of Abu Hanifah.”

* When Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh)

passed away, Imaam Auzaa-ee said: “Alhamdulillaah!

He used to dismantle Islam incrementally.”

* Ibn Mubaarak said: “He who uses Kitaabul Hiyal of

Abu Hanifah and issues fatwa on its basis, verily his

Hajj is nullified and his wife his forbidden for him.”

Then the Maula of Ibn Mubaarak said: “ O Aba Abdir

Rahmaan! I know of no one who has fabricated this

kitaab except shaitaan.” Ibn Mubaarak said: “The one

(i.e. Imaam Abu Hanifah) who has fabricated this

kitaab is viler than shaitaan.”

* Sufyaan Thauri said: “Seek Allah’s protection from

the evil of the Nabati when he pretends to be an Arab.”

* Qais Bin Rabee’ said about Imaam Abu Hanifah: “He

is the greatest jaahil….”

* Ubaidullah Bin Idrees said: “Abu Hanifah is a Dhaal

(astray) and Mudhil (one who leads astray), and Aby

Yusuf is a faasiq among the fussaaq.”

* Yazeed Bin Haaroon said: “I never saw any people

resembling the Nasaara so much as the followers of

Abu Hanifah.”

The derogatory epithets, mentioned here, with which

Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh) had been


56

slanderd are merely a sample of the naming and

shaming practice. It leaves one agape and aghast. These

great Ulama who had unjustly criticized and

disparaged Imaam Abu Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh),

later, after meeting him, or after receiving authentic

reports, made amends by the bestowal of accolades and

glowing praise for him. If Allah Ta’ala wills, we shall

publish a book on this subject. Here, the purpose of

mentioning these samples of naming and shaming is

only to highlight the jahaalat of the moron student molvi

who is starkly ignorant regarding the ‘science’ of

naming and shaming.

Defending the practice of naming, shaming and

criticizing the deviates and the enemies of the Deen,

Imaam Muslim (Rahmatullah alayh) states, and this is

mentioned by even the jaahil in his cut and paste job:

“Criticizing the narrators on the basis of (the

defects) within them is permissible. In fact it is Waajib.

It is not from such gheebah which is haraam. On the

contrary it is to defend the sacred Shariah.”

Well, this is precisely the rationale and the objective

underlying our criticism, naming and shaming the

deviates who denigrate the Sunnah of Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). There is absolutely no

difference between the practice of the Muhadditheen

and our practice, and no difference between our practice

and the practice of all the Mashaaikh and authorities of

the Shariah since the very era of the Sahaabah.

Morons are too dim in the brains to comprehend


57

realities, but they hallucinate having attained the status

of ‘ijtihaad’.

Without applying his mind, the jaahil cites Imaam

Tirmizi in a stupid bid to give credence to his view of

jahl. In defence of naming and criticizing deviates,

Imaam Tirmizi (Rahmatullah alayh) said:

“They (the Muhadditheen) were constrained to do this

(i.e. name, shame and criticize) by Naseehah for the

Muslims. It should not be thought of them that their

motive was merely to criticize people and make gheebat.

Verily they intended to expose the weakness of these

people (narrators) so that they (people) come to know.

Verily, some of those whom they had denigrated were

people of bid’ah, some were dubious regarding Hadith,

some were people of ghaflat (irresponsible and

careless) committing numerous errors. Thus, these

Imaams (of Hadith) intended to expose their conditions

for the concern of the Deen and for (maintaining its)

firmness……”

The moron cites without understanding what and why he

cites. He simply darkens pages unthinkingly. What

Imaam Tirmizi explained here is applicable to us,

Alhamdulillaah! To this Allah is Witness! The practice

of the Muhadditheen is loud testimony for our stance.

Whatever the moron has tried to explain to justify the

naming, shaming and damning methodology of the

Muhadditheen is applicable to us. There is nothing in

our methodology which is in conflict with the Sunnah

of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) or of the

Sahaabah or of the Muhadditheen. However, stupid

molvis and upstart ‘mujtahids’ who mingle and


58

associate with deviates present a lopsided picture of

Rasulullah’s methodology to hoodwink the public into

understanding that becoming bedfellows with and

embracing the criminals who criticize and denigrate the

Sunnah, are from the method of ta’leem of Nabi

(Sallalahu alayhi wasallam). In so doing they are either

ignorant of the other side of the coin or dishonestly

concealing it to perpetuate their unholy embrace of the

enemies of the Sunnah and the Deen.

Exhibiting his ignorance, the jaahil says: “Moreover,

usul (principles) were laid down by the Muhadditheen to

ascertain whether a narrator was reliable or not. It was

not just to label and criticise every

narrator…………This proves that the science of al Jar

wa al Ta dil was to protect the pristine Shariah.” This

averment is in confirmation of our stance which is

based on sound usool designed to protect the pristine

purity of the Shariah and the Sunnah and to save it from

the baatil interpolations and misinterpretations of the

frauds, zindeeqs and mudhilleen.

Lacking in entirety in dalaa-il for his utterly baseless

theory, he cites Ahaadith, etc. at random, simply cutting

and pasting lengthy texts from Salafi websites – texts

which have no relevance to the subject under study and

scrutiny. For instance he quotes the Hadith: “He who

speaks a lie on me should prepare his abode in the

Fire.” He simply darkens pages with cut and paste jobs

having no relationship to the topic or to his corrupt

theory. Far from these Ahaadith being in negation of

our stance, on the contrary, our attitude and

methodology are fully supported and vindicated by all


59

the Ahaadith he unthinkingly proffered for his

hallucination. And what is the ‘lie’ in our criticism of

the zindeeq tablighi doctor? On the contrary, the

miscreant denigrator of the Sunnah is guilty of lies in the

name of the Deen, for he stupidly claimed that the

Sunnah style of eating is not meant for the walimah.

Further providing substantiation for our stance, the

moron cites the following Ahaadith:

“Towards the end of this Ummah shall be people

who will narrate to you what you and your fathers have

not heard of. Save yourselves from them.”

“In aakhiruz zamaan (end of times) there will be

such dajjaaloon (plural of dajjaal) kath-thaaboon (great

liars) who will come to you with such ahaadith which

neither you nor your fathers have heard. Beware of

them. Save yourselves from them so that they do not

embroil you in trial.”

These narrations bring within their scope all dajjaals,

liars, zindeeqs and mudhilleen, and all enemies of the

Sunnah who have mushroomed in this era of Aakhiriz

Zamaan in which we find ourselves. They present weird

interpretations to bolster their anti-Sunnah attitude and

for justifying scuttling the Sunnah as the tablighi doctor

had perpetrated when he vented his spleen and

embarked on a tirade of criticism when he observed the

Brother sitting and eating on the ground in Sunnah style.

All such miscreants come within the purview of these

Ahaadith. Hence, we adopt the principle of naming and

criticizing the enemy of the Sunnah to save people from

deviation, and this is precisely Rasulullah’s command:

“Beware! Save yourselves from them!”


60

The jaahil in his endeavour to portray himself as an

expert of Hadith and Usool of Hadith, especially of the

branch known as Jarah wa Ta’deel, sweeps at random

from internet websites to darken some pages so as to

convey expertise. However, he succeeds only in

projecting his own jahaalat. The discussion pertaining

to Jarah-Ta’deel which the moron has introduced in his

flotsam article bears no relevance to the topic under

discussion. It is therefore a futile digression to refute

what he has presented. Whatever he has quoted from

the kutub is correct, but inapplicable to the subject we

are arguing in this refutation.

In his cut and paste jobs gleaned from Salafi sites, he

has gone off at a wide tangent from the topic which is

our stance of exposing the mudhilleen and the enemies

of the Sunnah and for which the basis and arguments

are solid and abundant, grounded in the Qur’aan and

Sunnah. He fails to present concrete evidence to bolster

his hallucinatory stupid theory of the total prohibition

of criticizing those who condemn the Sunnah and those

who mutilate the Shariah and those who embark on

transmogrification of Islam.

Coming out in defence of the tablighi doctor who had

denigrated the Sunnah, the moron paper ‘mujtahid’ says:

“Let us examine the incident at hand about the

Tablighi elder and the sitting on the floor situation. Did

you investigate whether what transpired was true or

not? Or did you just send out the message as received.

……. The honour of a Muslim is at stake here but we

hardly consider this.


61

If what you mentioned is false, then you have

slandered the Muslim brother which is a great offense

and sin.”

This moron upstart paper ‘mujtahid’ compounds not

only his jahaalat, but also his insincerity and the

aversion for the Haqq lurking in his heart, hence he has

posed his drivel questions to side track from the truth by

conveying the idea that the brother who had reported the

anti-Sunnah episode had done so on the basis of

hearsay, without verifying the facts of the situation.

This jaahil despite being fully aware that the Brother

who had reported the incident was the actual person

involved, attempts to create the impression of the report

being hearsay. He did not acquire the information from

another person who had claimed whatever had been

attributed to the tablighi doctor. Earlier in this treatise,

the full text of the Brother’s letter has been reproduced

for the benefit of readers who are being deliberately

misled by the jaahil student-molvi by his convolution

of the truth.

It is a fact of truth that the Brother who had complained

about the Satanism of the tablighi character, was the

person directly involved. There is no intermediary

between the person involved and The Majlis who had

published the incident.

Readers who have a love for the Sunnah even if they

may not be fully observant of the Sunnah, should reflect

on the remarks of the miscreant tablighi doctor, and they

will not fail to understand the villainy, in fact, kufr of

his shaitaani tirade. This miscreant doctor sahib


62

harbouring malice for the Brother because of the

previous day’s observance of the Sunnah, remarked:

“I wanted to tell you on Friday when I saw you, that

this what you are doing is very wrong. You cannot sit

on the floor here. There is a time and place for

everything and this is not the place to do this Sunna.”

These remarks of kufr are confirmed by the very Brother

to whom they were directed. The miscreant doctor

said: “What you are doing is very wrong.” We ask this

shaitaan: What was the Brother doing? He was sitting

on the floor eating in Sunnah style. But this Sunnah for

the miserable tablighi doctor was “wrong”. On this

ground of explicitly contending that the Sunnah is

wrong, he lost his Imaan.

Then the miserable deviate said: “You cannot sit on the

floor here.” Thus, he clearly forbids the Sunnah and

registers his aversion for Rasulullah’s style of eating.

Why could he not sit on the floor? What cogent reason

does this agent of Iblees have for prohibiting the

Brother from sitting on the floor?

Continuing his rubbish kufr tirade, the tablighi elder

said: “There is a time and place for everything..” What

time was it and what place was it where the Brother sat

on the floor to abide by the Sunnah? It was a Walimah

which is also Sunnah and which has to be incumbently

discharged in strict accord with the Sunnah. It was a

Walimah venue. An arrangement to sit on the floor was

readily available. Now when does the Sunnah of eating

have to be done? When inside the toilet or is the


63

Sunnah reserved for Tablighi Jamaat gatherings and

functions? What type of Sunnah observance is it, and

what type of love for Rasulullah (Sallalahu alayhi

wasalam) is that attitude which finds observance of the

Sunnah at Tablighi Jamaat ijtimas and functions

acceptable but intolerable at a Masnoon Walimah

function? Only zanaadaqah or nifaaq breeds such vile

intolerance for the Sunnah. In the Tablighi Ijtima’ tent

the doctor character portrays himself as a buzrug of

status, hence he will sit there on the floor without any

qualms to flaunt piety. But elsewhere he deems it

inappropriate to ‘debase’ himself with the glorious

Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Let

him hang his head in shame, and make Taubah and

renew his Imaan.

The moron says that “the honour of a Muslim is at

stake”. Let us look at the Muslims whose honour is at

stake as a consequence of this anti-Sunnah episode

enacted by the tablighi doctor. Here are three parties

involved: The honour of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasllam), the honour of the Brother who acted in

accordance with the Sunnah, and the honur of the

tablighi doctor who scorned and spurned the Sunnah.

Now whose honour has to be upheld in terms of the

Qur’aan and Ahaadith?

The doctor character violated the honour of Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by having denigrated and

insulted the Sunnah. The same miserable entity violated

the honour of the Muslim Brother who was quietly

eating in accordance with the Sunnah. This Brother did

not pick an argument or debate with the villain doctor or


64

with anyone else regarding eating on the floor. He sat

quietly eating his meal in Sunnah style. The doctor

character rudely barged in to express his aversion for the

Sunnah.

The events confirm that the doctor fellow has no honour

– no Islamic honour. His act exhibited his zanaadaqah

or his nifaaq. The honour that is at stake is the honour

of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the

honour of the Brother who fulfilled the Sunnah quietly

with dignity and respect while the miscreant violated

and sullied the honour of both.

Further blundering into confusion the moron paper

‘mujtahid’ introduces the episode of Ifq when Hadhrat

Aishah (Radhiyallahu anha) was slandered by the likes

of the doctor who had spat out his aversion for the

Sunnah. The episode of Hadhrat Aishah (Radhiyallahu

anha) far from negating our stance, on the contrary

confirms the validity of our Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil

Munkar and guarding the Sunnah.

The salient aspects of this incident of slander which

support our stance are:

(1) The slanderers were named and shamed.

(2) Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not

react with rifq.

(3) The reaction was with ta’neef. Three persons, a

male and two females, were flogged 80 lashes

each for having slandered Hadhrat Aishah

(Radhiyallahu anu).


65

The rifq bil jaahil aspect of Rasulullah’s methodology

was not implemented. The opposite policy of ta’neef

(harshness/severity) was instituted. There is nothing in

this episode to bolster the stupidity of the moron

student-molvi. Rifq (tenderness) is not applicable to all

occurrences and to every one.

The moron further confirming our stance states stupidly

labouring under the idea of proffering support for his

own convolution: “The practice of our Ulama and

elders has been to name the deviates in order to protect

the Iman of Muslims. Deviates like Mirza Ghulam

Ahmed, etc. have been exposed. This is because they had

kufr beliefs and ideologies and they were leading the

Muslims astray.”

This is precisely what we are doing. We protect the

Imaam of the masses by exposing the deviates just as

was the practice of our Akaabireen and of the Salafus

Saaliheen. We may add that this upstart paper

‘mujtahid’ had never been in the company of our

Akaabir Ulama nor did he even see any of them. He has

absolutely no relationship with our Akaabir Ulama, yet

he falsely seeks to create such an image for himself.

His statement only adds strength to our practice.

The ideology of the tablighi doctor in which he makes

the Sunnah a hobby or restricts it to some places and

occasions, is kufr. The masses have to be incumbently

apprized of this man’s kufr ideology because the

Tablighi Jamaat advertises him as a ‘senior’, and he

sits on the jamaat’s shura board. It is haraam to have a

deviate on the shura council.


66

In another silly attempt to justify his stupid theory, the

moron says: “Furthermore, the deviation of these

deviates was primarily in aqidah, for example the

Qadiyanis, Shias, etc.”

The deviation of a zindeeq and an anti-Sunnah

miscreant is in fact deviation in Aqeedah. Hitherto, we

have not named and shamed any Molvi who sits on

chairs eating from tables. We have not heard such

practical flouters of the Sunnah speaking scornfully of

the Sunnah as the zindeeq doctor had aquitted himself,

hence there developed no occasion for naming and

shaming them as we believe, and we hope we are

correct, that their Aqeedah regarding the Sunnah is

proper notwithstanding their fisq of emulating the

style of the kuffaar in practical life. So what the moron

paper ‘mujtahid’ says is bunkum which exhibits his

jahaalat.

Furthermore, Aqeedah being the only ground for

justifying naming and shaming of a deviate is a stupid

and false claim. Ulama have named and shamed other

Ulama on the basis of Fiqhi difference, bid’ah, historical

data and even in a fit of rage. This will be shown in

the ensuing pages, Insha-Allah.

The jaahil asks: “Did we observe our Akabir naming

and shaming and labelling others who had differences of

opinion in fiqh or other non-aqidah related issues?

Firstly, who are the Akaabir of this chap? They are not

our Akaabir. Secondly, who are the ones whom we have

named and shamed because of fiqh difference? It

devolves on the moron to provide precise information,

and we shall then, Insha-Alah, respond to his


67

khuraafaat. If he has in mind differences on the carrion

chicken and rotten meat issues, then we advise him to

get lost. Those who halaalize carrion are not doing so

on the basis of valid Fiqhi dalaa-il. They halaalize

carrion because they are agents of Iblees, and their

objective is haraam boodle. In every case of naming and

shaming persons, such modernists, zindeeqs or ulama-

e-soo’ are targeted who are mudhilleen whose opinions

lack in entirety in Fiqhi/Deeni substance. The moron is

too stupid to understand the difference.

Whenever an Aalim structures his case on Fiqhi/Shar’i

dalaa-il, then despite our counter opinion, we do not

name and shame him, and there are many such current

instances of which the moron chap is totally

ignorant.The moron’s contention is that we embark on

tajheel (labelling as ignorant), tafseeq (labelling as

faasiq), tadhleel (labelling as deviate) and takfeer

(branding as kaafir) any one with whom we differ on

Fiqhi issues. Now let the moron explain if our difference

with the tablighi doctor is based on Fiqhi differences.

Our stance in this regard is denunciation on the basis of

denigration (Istikhfaaf) of the Sunnah, and Inkaar

(rejection) of the Sunnah. Thus for the doctor character

we have the label of Zindeeq.

The moron cites unrelated Ahaadith which have

absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand. For example,

he quotes the Hadith: “Swearing a Muslim is

transgression and killing him is kufr.” His jahl is indeed

lamentable. He brings the Sahaabah, the Fuqaha and the

Muhadditheen within the purview of this Hadith and

similar other narrations. Whilst his intention is to direct


68

tafseeq and takfeer at us, all the authorities of the

Shariah by virtue of the motive for labelling between

them and us being a common factor, are brought within

the scope of these Ahaadith.

Sahaabah killing Sahaabah in the battles of Jamal and

Siffeen are sad and lamentable facts whih cannot be

denied. Does the jaahil bring all these illustrious

Sahaabah within the scope of the Hadith which he has

stupidly cited in a stupid bid to apply it to us?

Muhadditheen insulting Muhadditheen and great Ulama

vituperating against other Ulama are irrefutable facts.

Are they all within the scope of the Hadith? Which

Aqeedah did Imaam Maalik (Rahmatullah alayh) protect

when in a fit of rage he branded the great Muhaddith,

Ibn Ishaaq with the epithet: “A great dajjaal from the

dajjaals”? There are innumerable examples of

‘beautiful artefacts’ of the science of pejoration

employed by the Salafus Saaliheen to deride and

disparage adverseries whom they considered to be

deviates not necessarily in Aqeedah.

These Ahaadith have specific application, and so too

does the criticism of the Ulama-e-Haqq have specific

reference, and its application is dictated by Shar’i cause

and principle of which the moron paper ‘mujtahid’ is

ignorant. Akhlaaqi (moral) methodology applicable to

everyone in every day life in normal activities of life,

may not be applied to specific situations of Amr Bil

Ma’roof Nahyi Anil Munkar which may require the

Sunnah of Ta’neef which had been practically

demonstrated by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) and the Sahaabah.


69

The jaahil asks: “Is it correct and appropriate to

advise your Muslim brother personally and secretly or

to defame and humiliate him in front of the entire

world?

Why does this ignoramus not direct this question to

the tablighi doctor zindeeq who is guilty of:

Defaming a brother Muslim in public

Humiliating a brother Muslim in front of the

whole world?

And why does the moron not admonish the zindeeq by

asking him:

Why did you not advise your Muslim brother

secretly if you believed that the Sunnah was

nonsense?

Why did you not call your Muslim brother into

privacy and explain to him that it was not

permissible for him to observe the Sunnah in

public for in so doing he was bringing disgrace to

the host with the Sunnah?

The jaahil student molvi should adjust the facts of the

episode correctly, and endeavour to understand just who

was the one who had insulted what and whom, and who

was the one who had humiliated in public a brother

Muslim? Who had created the controversy and what was

the basis of the controversy initiated by the zindeeq?

Just who did the insulting, and who and what was being

insulted? The Brother who was quietly eating his food

in the style of our Beloved Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) narrates:


70

“I tried to calm him down by saying that it is my

habit and that I am not comfortable with eating at a

table. Before I could finish my sentence, he cut me off

by nodding his head as if he was disappointed, and

said: ‘No! No! No! There are big big Ulama here. You

are insulting them. You are insulting our guests and

our hosts by doing this here. We even eat on the floor

at home, but here we don’t do this. This is not the

place…….

There are great great Ulama here. Who are

you?.....You come here and insult everybody. How can

you go and sit like this here?’ I was almost in tears at

this point.” (Underlining is ours to emphasize the

scorn for the Sunnah.)

Let us not submit this flotsam tirade of kufr to Imaani

scrutiny. The underlined term, namely ‘this’ in the

aforementioned quote refers in each case to the Sunnah

of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). According to

the doctor agent of Iblees, the Brother was insulting the

‘big’ and ‘great’ Ulama and the hosts and the guests

with his Sunnah style of eating on the floor. The

zindeeq further emphasized that the walimah venue was

not the place to observe the Sunnah. The Sunnah has to

be executed in privacy in the home and in Tablighi

Jamaat tents and Musjids where the Jamaat puts up on

its excursions. People and other places should not be

‘disgraced’ and ‘insulted’ with the Sunnah.

This is the tirade of kufr, and this is the author of the

kufr which the miserable moron student-molvi is

laboriously and abortively defending by assigning baatil


71

interpretations to the Qur’aan and Ahaadith. In so doing

he has supported kufr and thus he comes squarely within

the purview of the Ahaadith which say: “He who speaks

a lie on me intentionally should prepare his abode in the

Fire.”

The jaahil has supported a zindeeq who insulted the

honour of a Muslim – who insulted the Sunnah, and in

so doing, he insulted the honour of Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The ‘big big’ and the

‘great great’ ulama who were present condoning the

scurrilous attack on the Sunnah are in reality big big

and great great donkeys. Such vile villains may not be

called Ulama, for Ulama are they who stand up for the

Haqq and who defend the Sunnah even at the price of

sacrificing their lives.

Whilst we are circumspect with the mild designation of

‘donkeys’, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayi wasallam) was

vehement with his method of Ta’neef with his

appellation of “DUMB DEVILS”. This is the

appropriate designation for those so-called ‘big big’

ulama who had supported the zindeeq tablighi doctor

with their satanic silence when the Sunnah was under

violent attack right in front of their eyes.

When the zindeeq doctor’s wife was informed of her

husband’s tirade of kufr and callous treatment of the

guest who had opted for Rasulullah’s Sunnah, she broke

down crying. May Allah Ta’ala reward her tears with

the the lofty mansions of Jannatul Firdaus.


72

O Jaahil molvi! Your rodomontade citation of the

Qur’aanic verse: “Call to the Path of your Rabb with

wisdom and beautiful preaching.”, reeks of nifaaq, for

your defence of kufr is the effect of hidden and perhaps

unknown kufr deep in your heart. We advise that you

should recite this aayat to the zindeeq tablighi doctor.

Was his outburst within the parameters of the Hikmat

and Mau’izah Hasanah mentiond in the Aayat which

you have presented in defence of your indefensible

khuraafaat? Ask your zindeeq friend to view his insults

in the mirror of this very Aayat to ascertain the degree

of his kufr.

AL-HUBB FILLAAH WAL BUGHD

FILLAAH

(LOVE FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH AND

HATRED/ ANGER FOR THE SAKE OF

ALAH)

For the further edification of the misguided student

molvi, we present some Ahaadith of Rasulullah

(Sallalahu alayhi wasallam).

(1) Hadhrat Abu Zarr (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrated:

“Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) came to us and

said: ‘Do you know which deed is most loved by Allah

Ta’ala?’ Someone said: ‘Salaat and Zakaat’. Another

one said: ‘Jihad.’ Then Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) said: ‘The most loved deed by Alah Ta’ala is

Love for Allah’ and Hatred for Allah’s Sake.”


73

The two dimensions of Rasulullah’s methodology of

advice and admonition are established in the Hadith.

(2) “He who gives for the Sake of Allah,

prevents/prohibits for the Sake of Allah, marries for the

Sake of Allah, loves for the Sake of Allah, and hates for

the Sake of Allah, verily he has perfected his Imaan.”

(3) Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Abbaas (Radhiyallahu anhu)

said to the Taabi-ee, Mujaahid: “O Mujaahid! Love for

Allah. Hate for Allah. Befriend for Allah. Become

enemy for Allah. Then, most assuredly, with this you

will acquire what is by Allah. Never will a person

obtain the sweetness of Imaan without this even with

abundance of Salaat and fasting. Verily, nowadays the

friendship of people in general is because of the dunya,

and that is not sufficient in the least.” Then he recited

the Qur’aanic Aayat: “Friends on that Day (of

Qiyaamah) will be enemies to one another except the

Muttaqeen.”, and he also recited: “You will not find a

people believing in Allah and the Last Day befriending

(loving) one who opposes Allah and His Rasool.”

The generality of these Qur’aanic verses brings the

zindeeq tablighi doctor within their purview. He

opposed Allah and His Rasool with his opposition to

and insult for the Sunnah.

(4) Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu anhu)

narrated that Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)

said: “He who establishes Salaat, pays Zakaat, listens

(to Allah’s Law) and obeys, verily he has moderated

Imaan (i.e. his Imaan is of middle class). And, he who


74

loves for Allah, hates for Allah gives for Allah and

prevents/withholds for Allah, verily he has perfected

Imaan.”

(5) Mujaahid (Rahmatullah alayh) said: “Verily, the

strongest handle of Imaan (by which to hold), is love for

Allah and hatred for Allah.”

Explaining the meaning of “the most powerful handle

of Imaan”, Ibn Rajab Hambali says in his Kitaab,

Jaamiul Uloom Wal Hikam: “Regarding Bughdh

fillaah, it is the most powerful handle of Imaan. It (this

hatred) is not among the prohibitions. If evil becomes

manifest from someone, and he (the observer) exhibits

anger at him whilst in reality the man (who committed

the evil) is ma’zoor (i.e. he had a valid excuse), (then

too) the Mubghidh (the one who vented his anger for

Allah’s Sake), will be rewarded.”

Ar-Rabee’ Bin Khuthaim said: “If you see a man

flagrantly committing evil and concealing his goodness,

and you express bughdh for him, Allah will reward

your anger expressd against the evil.”

Undoubtedly, Bughdh fillaah may not be used as a

smokescreen for nafsaaniyat. It is haraam to express

bughdh for any wordly or nafsaani motive. The one

who embarks on this delicate issue has to constantly

reflect and take a reckoning of his intentions to ensure

that his anger/hatred is genuinely Bughdh fillaah.

Bughdh fillah as well as Hubb fillaah are integral

constituents of Rasulullah’s methodology and Uswah


75

Hasanah. Similarly, are Rifq and Ta’neef. Each

attribute has to be applied correctly. There is benefit in

both. Misplacement of any valid method is either

harmful or ineffective. It is stupidity to apply Rifq in

every case, and to attempt negating Ta’neef in entirety

as the jaahil student molvi has endeavoured solely for

defending a man who has flagrantly and rebelliously

insulted the Sunnah and the honour of a Muslim.

The misguided student has proffered the advice of

studying the works of Shaikh Abdul Fattaah Abu

Ghuddah. For his edification, this Shaikh states in his

kitaab, Ar-Rasoolul Muallim, in the section captioned:

“The wrath (ghadhb) and harshness (Ta’neef) of

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in Ta’leem

when the situation demnanded it:

“Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used to

become extremely angry when the muta-allim would

in his argument and question traverse to the extent

which was not appropriate and delve in it. An example

of this (anger, etc.) is the narration of Ibn Maajah. The

Sahaabah were arguing about Qadr (Taqdeer).

Rasulullah’s face became red with anger (ghadb) like

the seeds of a pomegranate. In anger he said: “Have you

been commanded with this or have you been created for

this?....because of this, nations before you were

destroyed.”

Besides this example mentioned in the aforementioned

Kitaab, there are many examples evidencing

Rasulullah’s extreme anger which visibly showed on

his mubaarak face. The incident of the saliva on the


76

Qiblah wall, and other episodes have already been

mentioned earlier.

On the specific issue of naming and exposing the one

who misguides others, Imaam Abu Hanifah

(Rahmatullah alayh) said to his Student, Imaam Abu

Yusuf (Rahmatullah alayh): “When you are aware of

the evil of a person, then do not speak/mention this

about him, but search for goodness from him, and

speak about it, except in the matter of Deen. If you

are aware of it (evil) in his Deen then mention him to

the people so that they do not follow him and so that

they stay away from him. Rasulullah (Alayhis

salaam) said: ‘Mention the faajir with that in which

he indulges so that the people stay away from him

even if he is a man of status and position.’

And the person in whom you see corruption of the

Deen, mention that (to the people) and do not be

concerned of his status, for verily, Allah Ta’ala is

your Aid, and your Helper and the Helper of the

Deen..”

It is clear that those who mislead people – those who

are mudhilleen – those who pose a danger to the Deen

of the people must be incumbently exposed. Defending

the mudhilleen and those who flagrantly oppose and

denigrate the Sunnah is the effect of giving preference

to the dunya over the Deen, hence we find that the

misguided molvis while taking umbrage when the

deviates are criticized, acquit themselves like dumb

devils when the Deen is insulted and denigrated or

distorted. In so doing, they are playing with fire. The

following episode should be salubrious for the ulama-

e-soo’ whose focus is on the dunya, not on the Deen.


77

Imaam Haakim Al-Jaleel (Rahmatullah alayh) who was

martyred by the Tartars had condensed from the Kutub

of Imaam Muhammad (Rahmatullah alayh) masaa-il

for the benefit and ease of the Ulama of the time. He

named his kitaab, Al-Muntaqa. All the masaa-il of Al-

Muntaqa were from the Kutub of Imaam Muhmmad

(Rahmatullah alayh). In other words, it was an abridged

version of Imaam Muhammad’s kutub.

In a dream he saw Imaam Muhammad (Rahmatullah

alayh) asking him: ‘Why did you do this with my

Kutub?’ Haakim Al-Jaleel (Rahmatullah alayh) said:

‘Because in the Fuqaha (of this era) there is lethargy. I

therefore deleted the repetitions and mentioned the

established masaa-il for ease (of comprehension).’

Then, in the dream Imaam Muhammad (Rahmatullah

alayh) displayed wrath (anger –ghadhb), and he cursed:

‘May Allah cut you (asunder) as you have cut

(mutilated) my Kutub.’

Indeed this was a terrible and a fearful curse which had

materialized in real life. The Tartars had martyred

Haakim Al-Jaleel in a brutal manner. He (Rahmatullah

alayh) was sawn into two parts. Just prior to the

execution, Haakim Al-Jaleel (Rahmatullah alayh) said:

‘This is the punishment of one who preferred the

dunya over the Aakhirat. When the Aalim conceals

his knowledge and abandons its right, it is then

feared that he will be embroiled in what will be

horrible to him.’

Allah Ta’ala knows the mystery. We only fear. We

cannot comment on this episode which is beyond our


78

comprehension. The abridgement, Al-Muntaqa is a

wonderful aid for the Fuqaha and Ulama who are lost

and bewildered in the original masterpieces of Fiqh of

Imaam Muhammad. What was the mystery underlying

Imaam Muhammad’s curse, Allah Ta’ala Alone knows.

The lesson for the ulama-e-soo’ who miserably fail to

discharge the huqooq of Ilm is the last naseehat of

Hakeem Al-Jaleel (Rahmatullah alayh). All those ‘big

big’ and ‘great great’ molvis who were sitting on chairs,

eating from tables and spectating in silence the

vilification of the honour of Rasulullah’s Sunnah and

the insult of the honour of a Muslim Brother quietly

observing the Sunnah, should sit up, reflect and

endeavour to assess how deep they are trapped in the

quagmire of baatil.

Concealing the faults and sins of people refers to such

sins which are committed in the sinner’s private

capacity – sins which he does not advertise – sins which

he does not justify – sins which are not committed in

denigration of the Sunnah or rebelliously against the

Shariah. It is not permissible to publicize such sins of

the peple. However, regarding those who advertise

their lusts in the public and recklessly perpetrate fisq

and fujoor with an attitude of intransigence and scorn

for the Deen, Imaam Muhammad (Rahmatullah alayh)

said: “Regarding the man of hawa (lust) who

perpetrates it flagrantly in public and the faasiq who

commits fisq flagrantly (in the public), there is nothing

wrong mentioning these two along with their deeds.”

The faasiq mu’lin (the faasiq who himself exposes his

sins in public) is bereft of honour, and he does his own


79

naming and shaming. The basis for naming and

exposing theose who pose a danger to the Imaan of

people is the Hadith: “Why do you desist from

mentioning the faajir (an immoral person) with his

indulgence (in fujoor)? Expose him until the people are

aware of him. Mention him with his indulgence so that

the people are saved from him. Mention him so that the

people are saved from him, for there is no gheebat of

him.” (The double mention is in the Hadith)

The Fuqaha have excluded several persons from the

proscription of gheebat. Isaa Ibn Dinaar (Rahmatullah

alayh) said: “There is no gheebat regarding three

persons: A tyrannical ruler, a flagrant faasiq, and a man

of Bid’ah.”

Imaam Ghazaali (Rahmatullah alayh) has elaborated in

his Ihyaa-ul Uloom the topic of the need for gheebat.

In Raddul Muhtaar it is mentioned: “If a man fasts,

performs Salaat, and he (also) distresses people with

his hands and his tongue, then mentioning him with his

(evil) indulgences is not gheebat. In fact, if he is

reported to the Sultan, he should punish him.”

To save people from the distress of even a ‘pious’

person as mentioned in Shaami (above), it is permissible

to name him and his evils, and if he is shamed and

disgraced in the process of naming, the informed is not

sinful in any way whatsoever. The intention is not to

‘shame’ and humiliate the inconsiderate buzrug who

spends his time in Nafl ibaadat but at the same time

causes takleef to his neighbours. He may be mentioned

by name. As for ‘shame’ which the moron student

molvi adds to his stupid theory, it is a concomitant


80

effect of naming the villain. It is not the intention of the

one who engages in Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahy Anil

Munkar. The one who upholds the obligation of Amr

Bil Ma’roof understands that tahqeer (holding in

contempt) is haraam. Thus, ‘shaming’ while it is part of

the moron’s theory, it is never the intention when

naming the miscreant who misguides people with his

deviation. The deviate brings shame upon himself with

his haraam villainy.

In Tambeehul Ghaafileen, Abu Laith Samarqandi

(Rahmatullah alayh) says: “Permissible gheebat is to

mention a faasiq who publicizes his fisq. If a faasiq is

mentioned in order to save people (from his evil), he

(i.e. the one who names the faasiq) will be rewarded for

naming. Because it (such naming) is Nahyi anil

Munkar.”

There is no gainsaying that if the naming of the faasiq,

zindeeq, mudhil, enemy of the Sunnah, etc. is because

of despicable nafsaani motives, it is sinful and not

permissible. So it devolves on the accuser – the jaahil

molvi – to gain valid evidence by delving into our hearts

to substantiate any evil designs which he believes are

the motive for our naming of the agents of Iblees.

The protection of the Shariah, the Sunnah and the Imaan

of the masses is of paramount importance. It has greater

importance than the ‘honour’ of a person who vilifies

the Sunnah or who misleads people or who poses a

threat to the Imaan of the masses. Shaami explicitly

states the permissibility, in fact Wujoob, of naming the

culprits: “The sixth (example of permissibility) is to


81

criticize the majrooheen narrators (i.e. narrators who

are unreliable), witnesses and authors (of books for

their zanaadaqah, etc.). This is jaa-iz, in fact Waajib for

the protection of the Shariah.”

In a Hadith in Al-Mu’jamul Kabeer of Tabaraani,

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “There is

no gheebat regarding the faasiq.” A faasiq who

advertises his fisq can be named, and to greater degree

should the denigrator of the Sunnah be named and

criticized for the villainy of Istikhfaaf and Inkaar of

the Sunnah.

In Nawaadirul Usool fi Ahaadithir Rasool the issue of

naming is explained as follows in the discussion of the

Hadith: “Do you hesitate from mentioning the faajir?

Mention him so people are saved from that (fujoor)

which is in him”:

“It means: When the person’s fujoor overwhelms him

(i.e. is abundant), and he publicizes it, and rips off his

(own) veil, then there remains no (concealing) veil for

him. It is then impossible for him to conceal his fujoor.

(Furthermore), concealing his matter (i.e. his fujoor) is

khiyaanat, hence Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) said:……(the above Hadith). Then

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) explained the

benefit of naming (the faajir) by saying: ‘So that the

people are saved from what is in him. Verily, this

(function) of naming is for the one whose duty it is to

give naseehat to the public.”

In Umdatul Qaari of BadrudDeen Al-Aini, is mentioned:

“The one who flagrantly (indulges in fisq) is excluded


82

from (the meaning of) gheebat because of the Hadith

(of Rasulullaah –Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) – same

Hadith as above.

Explaining the issue of concealing and naming, is the

following commentary in Faidhul Qadeer: “Since the

Hadith exhorts concealment (of the faults of) a Muslim,

and warns against exposing him, they (the Sahaabah)

desisted from naming him (the faajir) by virtue of the

sanctity of Tauheed (in the culprit). Therefore he

(Rasulullah – Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) explained to

them that concealment is for those entitled to

concealment. However, when the person’s fujoor is

overwhelming and he is unconcerned about it, then he

has no honour. Therefore his affair (of fujoor) should

not be concealed. In fact naming him is Waajib, and

refraining from it is khiyaanat.”

The justification for naming and exposing the deviate

who publicizes his deviation is based on the Ahaadith

in which Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)

himself commands that “his veil of concealment be

ripped off”.

Hadhrat Hasan Basri (Rahmatullah alayh) said: “Your

naming a man who publicly sins and does not conceal

it, is a virtue recorded for you.” A Hadith narrated by

Imaam Muslim (Rahmatullah alayh) states: “Everyone

of my Ummah is forgiven except the mujaahiroon”. The

mujaahiroon are those who advertise their sins thereby

exposing what Allah has concealed for them. They make

this lawful for no valid reason.


83

The majority (of the Ulama) say that it is permissible

to say to a faasiq: ‘O faasiq!, or O so and so! (i.e.

whatever epithets befit him) on condition that the

intention is naseehat for him or for others or for

warning against his (evil) deed, not with the intention of

slandering. Thus, a valid intention is necessary (for this

permissibility).

…….And, it is permissible in the state of anger for the

Sake of Allah Ta’ala on the basis of ………the statement

of Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) in the episode of Haatib,

“Leave me to strike the neck of this munaafiq.”, and the

statement of Usaid for Sa’d: “Verily, you are a

munaafiq disputing on behalf of the munaafiqeen.”

Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not object (to this

name-calling) statements which were made in his

presence.” (Subulus Salaam)

Noteworthy is the fact that the Sahaabi Haatib

(Radhiyallahu anhu) branded a ‘munaafiq’ by Hadhrat

Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) was a Badri. He had

participated in the Battle of Badr, but this did not inhibit

Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) from labelling him

a ‘munaafiq’.

The following anecdote narrated by Hadhrat Maulana

Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) in his

Bawaadirun Nawaadir should also assist in divesting

the jaahil’s clogged brains from the cobwebs of

jahaalat which has constrained him to write drivel in

defence of his co-religionist tablighi doctor, and to

tolerate and defend the vile comments against the

Sunnah.


84

“Know that the element of permissibility for

mentioning the evils of another person is a valid motive.

That valid motive is unattainable except with it (i.e.

mentioning the evils of the person). This motive cancels

the sin of gheebat,………..

Bukhaari narrated in Kitaabut Tafseer from Sa’d Bin

Junaid who said to Ibn Abbaas (Radhiyallahu anhuma):

‘Nauf Bakaali thought that Musa the companion of

Khidhr was not Musa of Bani Israaeel.’ Ibn Abbaas

(Radhiyallahu anhu) then said:

‘The enemy of Allah has lied.”

In the annotation, Al-Kirmaani said: “He (Ibn Abbaas)

said so in the state of extreme anger.’ In reality, he

(Nauf Bakaali) was a Mu’min, a Muslim of beautiful

Islam.” Also in the Haashiyah in Kitaabul Ilm,

regarding the term, Aduw wallaah (Enemy of Allah), the

Ulama said that this was by way of zajar

(reprimanding, warning, threatening).The reality is that

he (Al-Bakaali) was a Mu’min and the Imaam of the

people of Damascus. Ibnut Teen said: ‘Ibn Abbaas did

not intend to expel Nauf from the Wilaayat of Allah.

However, the hearts of the Ulama are disgusted when

they hear that what is not Haqq, then they employ such

statements for the purpose of rebuking. The reality is

that it is not the intention (to expel from the fold of

Islam).”

The moron defender of the anti-Sunnah tablighi doctor

should now reflect. There are a number of lessons and

salient facts in the manner in which Hadhrat Abdullah

Ibn Abbaas (Radhiyallahu alayhi) had acquitted himself

in hurling the extremely grave and humiliating epithet


85

of “Aduwallaah –Enemy of Allah” at such an

illustrious Aalim of the Haqq as Nauf al-Bakaali:

He had labelled a recognized, senior Aalim of the

Haqq as ‘Enemy of Allah’.

The difference of opinion was not related to

Aqeedah nor to Fiqh. It pertained to a historical

issue.

He did not institute an investigation to establish if

indeed Nauf had made the statement. He

spontaneously without further enquiry, labelled

Nauf ‘Aduw wallaa’, merely on the basis of a

statement made to him.

Nauf was a great Aalim, Wali and the Imaam of

the Ummah in Damascus.

Not a single Aalim had criticized Hadhrat Ibn

Abbaas (Radhiyallahu anhu) for having

administered this epithet of extreme gravity

against a well-known authority of the Shariah.

No one cited to Ibn Abbaas (Radhiyallahu anhu)

by way of admonition the Hadith: ‘To abuse a

Muslim is fisq….’

Ibn Abbaas (Radhiyallahu anhu) was aware of

the Hadith and of all the other Ahaadith and of

the Qur’aanic Aayaat which instruct observance

of Rifq (tenderness/kindness) when speaking.

Despite his awareness of the Uswah Hasanah

and methodology of Rifq of Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), he adopted

Rasulullah’s methodology of Ta’neef since this,

in his opinion, was the need for the occasion. In

so doing, he emulated Rasulullah (Sallallahu

alayhi wasallam) who had labelled a mukhannath


86

(transvestite, hermaphrodite, moffie), ‘Aduw-

wallaah’ because this person stared intently at

women. No difference of Aqidah.

The Ulama – the great Authorities of the Shariah

- condone and justify these epithets of extreme

gravity which are the effects of Bughdh fillaah,

and also for the sake of protecting the Deen.

Epithets such as ‘Enemy of Allah’, ‘Enemy of the Deen’,

etc. made by the Sahaabah and the Salafus Saaliheen,

are not isolated or rare incidents. The Kutub of the

Shariah are replete with such pejorative epithets

blurted out by great Authorities of the Shariah. In

pursuance of the attitude of Bughdh fillaah. But the

juhhaal molvis of soo’ (evil), grossly deficient in Ilm-e-

Deen, with limited access to the Kutub of the Shariah

due to lack of academic Isti’daad (ability), but experts

in the art of cut and paste jobs – information which they

lap up from just any website such as the moron has

perpetrated in this current job of defending the zindeeq

tablighi doctor, take umbrage and disgorge venom at

those who stand up in defence of the Sunnah and the

Deen. They should remember that their villainous

vituperation is in actual fact designed for Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam), but is taken with pride by

the Ulama-e-Haqq who are the Shields of Rasulullah’s

honour and the guardians of the Deen (the Qur’aan and

Sunnah).

Coming back to the Epithet of Aduw Wallaah’, we

proffer more edification for the jaahil student molvi and

his juhhaal Asaatizah who have taught him audacity,

kitmaanul haqq and ta’weel baatil. It is indeed

lamentable that some of the teachers at the Darul


87

Ulooms whilst imparting dars engage in gheebat of

‘opponents’ (Ulama-e-Haqq), thereby polluting and

corrupting the brains and hearts of the students. Some

students of the Madaaris do communicate with us,

seeking advice regarding issues which they understand

are in conflict with the Shariah, e.g. an Ustaadh

indulging in gheebat.

Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu)

branding a man who had objected to the manner in

which Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had

distributed the spoils of war, said: “Yaa Aduw

wallaah!” (O Enemy of Allah!). Whoever disparages

any facet of the Sunnah is in fact Aduw Wallaah.

Hadhrat Umar Ibn Khattaab (Radhiyallahu anhu) had

appointed Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu anhu)

as the governor of Bahrain. On his return to Madinah, he

(Abu Hurairah) had brought with him considerable

wealth. When Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) saw

the wealth, he commented with extreme harshness: “Ya

Aduw Wallaah! (O Enemy of Allah!), Ya Aduw wa

Kitaabihi! (O Enemy of Allah’s Kitaab –the Qur’aan!).

You have stolen the wealth of Allah Ta’ala.” Hadhrat

Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu anhu) replied: “O Ameerul

Mu’mineen! I am not the enemy of Allah nor am I the

enemy of His Kitaab. I have not stolen the wealth of

Allah.”

Despite Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu anhu)

explaining how he had accumulated the wealth, Hadhrat

Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) paid no heed. He confiscated

everything from Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu

anhu) and entered it into the Baitul Maal.


88

This salubrious episode requires much reflection.

Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu anhu) was among

the most senior Sahaabah. He was of the Ashaab-e-

Suffah. He was about the greatest Narrator of Ahaadith.

In every aspect of life he was impeccable. Despite all his

credentials, Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) without

instituting any investigation – without making any

enquiry – branded him an enemy of Allah and an enemy

of the Qur’aan, and he confiscated all of the wealth

Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu anhu) had brought

with him.

Now will the jaahil student molvi apply the Ahaadith

and the Qur’aanic Aayaat which deprecates such

conduct? Shall it be said that Hadhrat Umar

(Radhiyallahu anhu) was unaware of Rasulullah’s

methodology of Rifq? Shall it be said that he was in

conflict with the Qur’aan which commands investigation

before accusing and damning a person, especially if that

person is a great Aalim, a Saint, a Muhaddith and a

close Sahaabi of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam)?

What Aqeedah difference did Hadhrat Umar

(Radhiyallahu anhu) have with Hadhrat Abu Hurairah

(Radhiyallahu anhu) to constrain him to resort to such

a severe form of ‘naming and shaming’? The valid

motive justifies the epithet of abuse, and the adoption

of ta’neef.

Hadhrat Hasan Basri (Rahmatullah alayh), putting his

life on the line, said to Hajjaaj, the brutal ruler of Iraq:

“O Worst of the Fussaaq! O Worst of the Fujjaar! The


89

inhabitants of the heavens are wrathful to you. The

inhabitants of the earth curse you”.

Then when he left the palace of Hajjaaj, Hahrat Hasan

commented: “Verily, Allah has taken a pledge from the

Ulama to proclaim the Haqq, and not to conceal it.” All

those ‘big big’ molvis who had condoned the

disparagement and the denigration of the Sunnah, and

the humiliation of the Brother who had upheld the

Sunnah, should hang their heads in shame for their

disgusting conduct of offering support to the zindeeq

tablighi doctor who slandered the Sunnah, dishonoured

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with his satanic

tirade, and humiliated the honour of the Brother.

Once when Imaam Ahmad Bin Hambal (Rahmatullah

alayh) was severely criticizing a narrator, someone

admonishing him said: “O Shaikh! Do not make gheebat

of the Ulama.” Imaam Ahmad responded: “O

miserable one! This is naseehat, not gheebat.”

When Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mubaarak (Rahmatullah

alayh) had criticized a narrator, it was said to him: “You

have indulged in gheebat.” He replied: “Shut up! If we

do not explain (i.e. expose the deviate), how will the

Haqq be distinguished from baatil?”

Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mubaarak (Rahmatullah alayh)

said: “If I am given the choice of entering Jannat (first)

or meeting Abdullah Bin Muharrar, I shall opt to first

meet him, then enter Jannat. However, when I saw him,

manure was more loved to me than he.”


90

Even moron students are aware of the status of this

Jalilul Qadr Taab’e, Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mubaarak

(Rahmatullah alayh). What was the need for him to

refer Muharrar with such contempt? Ibn Muharrar at the

lowest level was after all a Mu’min subscribing to

Tauheed. He did not utter kufr. But it was said that the

manure of camels was superior to him. Was Hadhrat

Abdullah Ibn Mubaarak (Rahmatullah alayh) not aware

of Rasulullah’s methodology of Rifq bil Jaahil? Was he

not aware of the Hadith: “Abusing a Muslim is fisq….”

Was he not aware of the innumerable Ahaadith and the

many Qur’aanic Aayaat pertaining to good Akhlaaq?

What is the verdict of this moron misguided student

molvi?

Once when a man with dishevelled hair and beard came

into the presence of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallaqm), he (Nabi –Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Some of you come as if he is a shaitaan.” This was

said in the presence of the man. On another occasion

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasalam) saw a man with

black hair. However, the day before his hair was white.

He had dyed his hair black. Rasulullah (Sallallahalayhi

wsallam) said: “Who are you?” The man replied: “I am

a certain person (i.e. he provided his name).” Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “In fact, you are

shaitaan.” The methodology of Rifq was not adopted by

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The man was

explicitly named a ‘shaitaan’.

Amr Bin Walid said: “ I said to Abbaad Bin Mansur:

‘Who said to you that Ubay Bin Ka’b (Radhiyallahu

anhu) had refuted Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu)


91

regarding the Hadith on Qadr?’ Abbaad Bin Mansur

said: ‘A man whom I do not know.’ Amr Bin Walid

said: “I know who he is. He is the Shaitaan.”

In Tabaqaatul Hanaabilah, it is said about these deviates:

“A man who opposes the Haqq, and opposes the

Muttaqeen before him, he is a deviate, a misguider, and

a shaitaan in this Ummah. It is incumbent on one who

recognizes him to warn people of him, and to expose his

affair so that people do not fall into his bid’ah and be

destroyed.” This in fact is applicable to the zindeeq

tabligh doctor who opposed the Sunnah.

FOOD FOR THE MORON’S

REFLECTION Ibn Ishaaq (Rahmatullah alayh) was among the

illustrious Muhadditheen. However, two great

authorities of the Shariah had diametrically opposite

views regarding him. Shu’bah said about him: “Verily,

he is Ameerul Mu’mineen in Hadith.” Shu’bah is an

Imaam of the Shariah according to all authorities, and so

is Imaam Maalik (Rahmatullah alayh). However,

Imaam Maalik severely assailing Ibn Ishaaq said:

“Verily he is a dajjaal from the dajaajilah.” The very

Muhaddith who is Ameerul Mu’mineen fil Hadith to the

one authority is a dajjaal to another authority. It was

not a difference in Aqeedah.

Was Imaam Maalik (Rahmatulla alayh) not aware of the

Rifq methodology of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam)? The miscreant student molvi should direct

his admonition to Imaam Maalik (Rahmatullah alayh)


92

for ‘naming and shaming’ a great Muhaddith whose

honour has been ‘violated’ in terms of the moron’s

‘naming and shaming’ bunkum theory.

A LITANY OF PEJORATIVES

For the entertainment and edification of the moron who

has eloped with the idea of him being a ‘mujtahid’, we

present a ‘beautiful’ litany of epithets and pejoratives

uttered with objugatory intent.

Shaitaan, Dajjaal, Son of Shaitaan, Dajjaal among the

Dajaajilah, Aduw Wallaah (Enemy of Alah), Hadith

Thief, Kath-thaab (Great Liar), Vile man, Shaikh

Dajjaal, Fraud, Such a Shaikh Dajjaal whose mention

in the Kutub is not halaal except by way of vilification,

A greater liar than my donkey (i.e. a greater moron than

my donkey), Kath-thaabun Khabeethun (Such a great

liar who is Filth, Great Fabricator, Zindeeq, Faasiqun

Mal-oonun (Accursed Faasiq), Wild Beast, Akthabun

Naas (The Greatest liar of mankind), Ruknul Kithb

(The Pillar of lies), All Lies end in him, Mankind’s

Worst Liar, Ma’dinul Kithb (The Mine of Lies),

Mamba-ul Kithb (Fountain of Lies), Son of a Seductor,

Worse than Iblees, Manure is superior to him, Dhaal

(deviate), Mudhil (one who deviates others), Faasiq

minal Fussaaq (faasiq among the fussaaq), etc. All of

these laudatory and complimentary designations were

awarded to specific personalities – to great Ulama,

Muhadditheen and Fuqaha. And, these epithets were

coined by Ulama during the Salafus Saaliheen era.


93

All of these ‘beautiful’ pejorative artefacts apply with

perfect equanimity to the Zindeeq who denigrated the

Sunnah and humiliated the honour of a Muslim Brother.

These are all designations and appellations beautifully

carved by the Authorities of the Shariah, commencing

from Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and

including the Sahaabah, Taabi’-een and Tab-e-

Taabi’een. The Kutub of the Shariah are replete with

these complimentary titles awarded by the Authorities of

the Shariah to those whom they considered to be

deviates and devils whilst in reality most of these

castigated personalities who were named and shamed

were great Aimmah and Auliya. But morons with

squint-eyed vision have no meaningful access to the

Kutub. Their research is restricted to cutting and pasting

from generally the websites of liberals and self-

appointed ‘mujtahids’ wallowing in jahaalat.

THE TAFSEER OF AAYAT 75, 76 AND

77, SURAH AT-TAUBAH

“And from them are those who pledge to Allah

that if He (Allah) gives us from his bounty, then

most certainly we shall give Sadqah and be

among the Saaliheen. Then, when We give them

from Our bounty, they become niggardly with it.

They turn their backs (on their pledge), and they

ignore(what they had promised Allah). Then He

(Allah) established nifaaq in theirhearts until the

Day they will meet Him (in Qiyaamah), (and this

is) because they violated what they had promised

Allah, and because of the lies they spoke.


94

Scrounging the barrel (the internet websites) on account

of lacking access to the Kutub of the Shariah due to

lack of Isti’daad (academic ability), the misguided

student molvi, in refutation of the official tafseer of the

Jamhoor Mufassireen, in fact, of all the Mufassireen,

and Fuqaha, disgorges what he had lapped up from the

vomit of the website. Thus he says:

“This tahqiq is also worth studying: Question - “Is the

famous incident about Sayyiduna Tha’labah Ibn Hatib

(Radhiyallahu anhu) asking Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) to make dua Allah Ta’ala increases his

wealth and him not paying zakah after becoming

wealthy authentic?

Answer - Despite the narration being widely quoted, it

is unauthentic and not suitable to quote. Hafiz Ibn

Hajar and Hafiz Haythami (Rahimahumallahu) have

classified the chain of narrators as very weak…….”

The ‘tahqiq’, i.e. research, to which the jaahil refers, is

not his own tahqiq. He merely lapped up the deficient

‘tahqiq’ from a website, and presented it as his own. If

this unfortunate defender of the zindeeq tablighi anti-

Sunnah doctor, had valid academic ability in the

Knowledge of the Shariah, he would not have sweeped

the sites for cast away cigarette butts and stubs, but

would have honourably resorted to the Kutub. Then he

would not have failed to acquire the correct tafseer of

these Aayaat proffered by the Jamhoor Mufassireen.

He would not have committed the stupid blunder of

dismissing the authoritative Tafseer of the Jamhoor on

the basis of his own misunderstanding the statements

of Ibn Hajar and others.


95

The episode in discussion in the aforementioned Aayaat

of the Qur’aan Majeed refers to Tha’labah Bin Haatib

who had requested Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) to supplicate for barkat in his wealth.

Although Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasalam)

discouraged him from this desire, he persisted.

Thereafter, Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)

made dua. The consequence of this dua was the

increase of Thalabah’s weath by leaps and bounds.

When it was time to pay the Zakaat on the fortune he

had amassed, he refused. Thus, the curse of Allah Ta’ala

in the form of nifaaq was grounded in his heart. After

his initial refusal when he attemptd to pay the Zakaat,

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the three

Khulafa Raashideen rejected his Zakaat. He died during

the khilaafat of Sayyiduna Hadhrat Uthmaan

(Radhiyallahu anhu) with his Zakaat undischarged.

The Mufassireen named Tha’labah Bin Haatib as the

person who had reneged on his pledge. Among the

authoritative Kutub of Tafseer which unanimously

confirm that the person mentioned in these Qur’aanic

Aayaat was Tha’labah, are:

(1) TafseerTabari (d 310 H)

(2) Tafseer Ibn Abi Haatim (d 327 H)

(3) Tafseer Maturidi (d 333 H).

(4) Tafseer Abu Laith Samarqandi (d 373 H)

(5) Tafseer Ath-Tha’labi (d 427 H).

(6) Tafseer Al-Hidaayah Ila Bulughin Nihaayah

of Abu Muhammad Maaliki (d 437)

(7) Tafseer Maawardi Ash-Shaafi ( 450 H)

(8) Tafseerul Waahidi Ash-Shaafi (d 468 H)


96

(9) Tafseer Jurjaani (d 471 H)

(10) Tafseerus Sam’aani Ash-Shaafi (d 459 H)

(11) Tafseerul Baghawi Ash-Shaafi (d 510)

(12) Tafseer Al-Muharrarul Wajeez by

Allaamah Muhaaribi (d 542 H)

(13) Tafseer I’jaazul Bayaan by Najmuddeen

Nishapuri (d 550 H)

(14) Tafseer Ibnul Jauzi Al-Hambali (d 597 H)

(15) Tafseerur Raazi (d 606 H)

(16) Tafseer Qur’aan by Izzud Deen Al-

Dimishqi (d 660 H)

(17) Tafseerul Qurtubi (d 671H)

(18) Tafseer Baidhaawi (d 685H)

(19) Tafseer Nasafi Al-Hanafi (d 710 H)

(20) Tafseer Khaazin Al-Hanafi (d 741H)

(21) Tafseer At-Tas-heel li Ulumit Tanzeel by

Abul Qaasim Al-Gharnaati (d 741 H)

(22) Tafseer Al-Bahrul Muheet of Abu

Hayyaan Al-Andulusi (d 745 H)

(23) Tafseer Ibn Katheer (d 774 H)

(24) Tafseer Lubaab by Umar Bin Ali Al-

Hambali (d 775 H)

(25) Tafseer Gharaaibul Qur’aan by

Nizaamuddin Nishapuri (d 850 H)

(26) Tafseer Jalaalain of Imaam Suyuti (d 911

H)

(27) Tafseer Al-Jawaahurul Hisaan of Abu Zaid

Ibn Makhloof (d 875 H)

(28) Nazmud Durar of Al-Baqqaa’i (d 885 H)

(29) Tafseerul Ijee Ash-Shaafi ( 905 H)

(30) Tafseer Ad-Durrul Manthur Of Imaam

Suyuti ( d 911 H)


97

(31) Tafseer As-Siraajul Muneer of

Shamsuddeen Ash-Shirbeeni Ash-Shaafi (d 877)

(32) Roohul Ma-aani of Shihaabuddeen Aaloosi

(d 1270 H)

(33) Fathul Qadeer of Muhammad Ash-

Shaukaani Al-Yemeni (d 1275 H)

(34) Fathul Bayaan Fi Maqaasidil Qur’aan of

Al-Husaini Al-Bukhaari Al-Qinnauji (d 1270

H)

(35) Tafseer Mazhari (d.1225 H)

(36) Tafseer Bayaaul Qur’aan of Hadhrat

Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (d.1362 H)

(37) Ma-aariful Qur’aan of Mufti Muhammad

Shafi (d.1396 H)

(38) Tafseeru Al-Bahrul Madeed of Abu

Abbaas Al-Faasi (d 1224 H)

(39) Tafseer Utmaani of Moulana Shabbi

Ahmed Uthmaani (d 1369 H)

(40) Tafseerul Manaar of Shaikh Rashid Ridha

(d 1354 H)

Besides this staggering array of Kutub of the illustrious

Mufassireen, there are more Tafseer Kutub confirming

the very same person, viz. Tha’labah Bin Haatib, as

being the subject of reference in the relevant Qur’aanic

verses. In the aforementioned enumeration are included

even the tafseers of liberals, ghair muqallids and salafis.

This digression has been constrained by the stupidity of

the moron paper ‘mujtahid’. Whoever the person

castigated in the Aayat may be, has no relevance to the

topic of naming and shaming. Relative to this

discussion, it matters not who the person was. The fact


98

remains that the culprit is named and shamed. Since the

moron has no ability for tahqiq (research) he simply

lapped up from the internet just any flotsam with which

to fill some pages to gratify his ego with the

hallucination of being a ‘mujtahid’. If he had gained

access to the Kutub, he would have understood that it

is not possible for such a glittering galaxy of illustrious

Ulama and Mufassireen to all have committed the same

blunder which he as assumed on the basis of what he has

acquired from the website.

If the moron is capable of understanding that the

Tha’labah mentioned as a munaafiq was not among the

munaafiqeen because he was from the People of Badr,

then did all the great Giants of Uloom not understand

this issue. It is confirmed that there were two people

with almost identical names. There is no incumbency to

believe that the Tha’labah who comes within the

purview of the Qur’aanic Aayat was from the People of

Badr. Several Mufassireen have also clarified this issue.

In fact, there is no need for clarification since it is only

a moron who seeks proof for the presence of the sun

during day time. That the Tha’laba referred to in the

Qur’aanic Aayat was not the Badri, is a self-evident

fact. Mentioning this obvious fact, Allaamah Aaloosi

(Rahmatullah alayh) states in his Ruhul Ma-aani: “The

Aayat was revealed regarding Tha’labah Bin Haatib.

He is mentioned as Ibn Abi Haatib. He is from Bani

Umayya Bin Zaid, and he is not the Badri (Tha’labah)

because he (the Badri) was martyred in Uhud –

Radhiyallahu anhu.” Other Mufassireen also mention

this fact to dispel the confusion.


99

In the array of Tafaaseer Kutub mentioned above, some

mention the confusion. In reality the doubts pale into

oblivion because the contention is not that the

Tha’labah whom the Qur’aan confirms as a munaafiq,

was the same Tha’labah who had participated in the

Battle of Badr. This issue introduced stupidly by the

moron is nonsensical. We have digressed and we have

entertained this drivel introduction simply to show that

the fellow is a moron having very little relationship with

Ilm-e-Deen.

Although we had at no stage mentioned the naming

practice of the Mufassireen as the basis for our

justified Shar’i practice of naming Zindeeqs and

Mudhilleen, the moron shot himself in the foot by

having introduced extraneous matter. All the extraneous

issues confirm our stance of naming. Naming is the

standard practice of all the Mufassireen and

Muhadditheen. As for the ‘shaming’ component of the

stupid theory, it is simply a necessary corollary

stemming from the naming regardless of there being no

intent.

Furthermore, the topic of discussion is not the identity

of the person to whom reference is made in the Aayat.

The argument concerns the theory of naming and

shaming. Hence, regardless of who the person was, the

fact remains that he was named. This amount suffices

for our stance. Now whether the Tha’labah mentioned

by almost every Mufassir is the one of Badr or not, is

not relevant to our discussion in this treatise.

Nevertheless, we had deemed the digression necessary

to divest the fellow of his stance of jahaalat.


100

DON’T BE LIKE A PANTING DOG

“His similitude is like that of a dog. If you attack it, it

(the dog) pants, or if you leave it, it (also) pants.

This is the example of people who belie Our Aayaat.”

(A’raaf, Aayat 176)

The moron molvi should have some awareness of the

circumstance of revelation of this Aayat which refers to

the episode of Bal’am Ba-oor, a famous saint (buzrug)

of Bani Israaeel. He was Mustajaabut Da’waat, i.e. his

duas were instantaneously accepted by Allah Ta’ala. He

fell into the snare of shaitaan who had used his wife to

entangle him in kufr.

Nabi Musa (Alayhis salaam) was set to invade with his

army the land where Bal’am Ba-oor lived. The ruler

prevailed on his wife to persuade her husband Bal-am to

make dua for the defeat of the army of Bani Israaeel. At

first, Bal-am Ba-oor vigorously refused. But in the end

the pleadings and nagging of his wife, and the huge

amount of wealth given to bribe Bal-am blinded his

intellect.

When he attempted to make dua against the army of

Nabi Musa (Alayhis salaam), his mouth simply locked.

After the third attempt, his mouth opened and his tongue

miraculously hung out like a dog. It was stuck to his

chest, leaving him panting like a dog.

He had become the agent of Iblees, hence his earthly

punishment was panting like a dog with tongue on his

chest at all times. He had attempted to use the Deen


101

against the Deen. The bounty of Istijaab (acceptance of

dua) is an element of the Deen. Nabi Musa’s Jihad was

an element of the Deen. This dog of a person- the agent

of Iblees - whose brains became convoluted by worldly

motives, abortively attempted to use the Deen against

the Deen. He miserably failed and ended up like a dog

panting at all times in all circumsances whether tired or

not.

We warn the student molvi that by defending the

Zindeeq who denigrated the Sunnah, he is playing with

fire and hanging his Imaan on the line of destruction

even though he is too blind to perceive the misfortune

on which he has embarked. By using the Qur’aan and

Ahaadith to defend a Zindeeq he has likened himself to

Bal-am Ba-oor. He has become like a panting dog. He

disgorges the Qur’aan and Ahaadith against the Deen.

He thus pants like a dog -- like Bal-am Ba-oor after he

fell from his lofty pedestal of Wilaayat just as shaitaan

had fallen from his lofty pedestal in the Heavens.

The molvi should reflect on the statements of kufr made

by the miserable tablighi doctor, then in that mirror of

zanaadaqah, should he view his defence of the Zindeeq.

May Allah Ta’ala guide him and us all, and save us all

from the evil lurking in our nafs and from the snares of

Iblees.


102

DON’T BE LIKE A DONKEY

“The similitude of those on whom the Tauraah was

loaded, then they did not carry it, is like the similitude

of a donkey carrying kitaabs. Vile indeed is the

example of such people who belie the Aayaat of

Allah. And Allah does not guide those who are

flagrantly unjust.”

(Al-Jumuah, Aayat 5)

Neither does a donkey understand nor appreciate the

treasure of Kutub loaded on its back. Casting saffron in

front of a donkey is stupid. The donkey will not

appreciate it. This is the similitude of molvis who have

acquired the Kutub of the Deen, which remain closed

books to them. Whilst they have studied something of

the Deen and have acquired possession of the Kutub,

they are like a donkey which does not understand the

load of Kutub on its back.

About such molvis and Asaatizah, Rasulullah

(Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“He who imparts Ilm to one who is unfit for it, is like

one who garlands swines with diamonds, pearls and

gold.”

Just as the swines and the donkeys do not understand the

worth of the treasures with which they are garlanded,

and the Kutub loaded on to them respectively, so is it

with the molvis who misuse the smattering of

knowledge which they glean from the internet, using it

for the destruction of the Deen, for the denigration of the


103

Sunnah and for humiliating the honour of those who

uphold the Sunnah and the Shariah.

We urge the student molvi to engage in some

muraaqabah to detect the shaitaani thief lurking within

the innermost recess of his heart, and to save his Imaan

which he has hung on the line in defence of the zindeeq

who had insulted the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu

alayhi wasallam).

If he ponders, he will not fail to understand that the only

reason for his shaitaani defence of the mujrim (criminal)

is the common factor of being Tablighis. Both the

doctor character and this molvi character are blind

Tablighis. They have elevated the Tabligh Jamaat

above the Sunnah and the Shariah. Such bigotry is the

effect of pride and vanity (takabbur and ujub).

A WORD OF NASEEHAT FOR THE

DARUL ULOOM ASAATIZAH

Only such Ulama who have opted for deliberate

blindness will fail to see and understand the deplorable

academic and moral conditions and diseases in which

both the Asaatizah and the Talaba are wallowing. The

attitude of this moron molvi has been largely influenced

and moulded by the corruption of the Asaatizah.

Reference to this has already been made in the

introduction of this treatise.

It is imperative to set aside ujub and takabbur and to

acknowledge the putrid condition of the Talaba of the


104

Madaaris. In addition to their corrupt moral state, they

are academically sub-doldrum. They lack egregiously in

Is’tidaad. A fundamental cause for this gross weakness,

besides, the lack of Islaah, is the addiction to the

computer. It is indeed a lamentable khiyaanat

perpetrated by the Madaaris by allowing the students

access to computers. This addiction has closed access to

the Kutub. The Talaba should incumbently do their

Mutaala-ah via the Kutub, not lap up the vomit on the

napaak internet.

The consequence of computer addiction is closure of

the Avenue of direct access to the Kutub. The Talaba

of today hence lack the ability to gain a panoptical view

of a subject which is tackled. Their information is

limited to the cigarette butts and stubs they pick up on

the internet, and generally cast by deviates. Thus, we

observe only cut and paste jobs presented by the molvis

of this computer era. Then they have the audacity to pat

themselves on the back, hallucinating of having

achieved great accomplishment in the field of Shar’i

Uloom when in reality they are still crawling at

kindergarten level. This unfortunate student molvi is an

example of a kindergarten infant trying to jump to the

top of a ladder.

Our tone and methodology will be chagrin to those

whose egos are bloated with nafsaaniyat, but we

proffer this advice with sincerity for the enduring benefit

of the Ahl-e-Ilm. Heed our advice. Ban computers in the

Madaaris for the Talaba. Get them to cultivate affinity

(Munaasabat) with the Kutub. During our Madasah

days we were not allowed to study even the Shuruhaat.


105

This prohibition was underlined by sound wisdom. Let

them convert the nights into day with absorption in the

Kutub. Let them understand that their final year at the

Madrasah does not qualify them as ‘Aalims’. They only

qualify to understand with clarity their own jahaalat

which they have to hencefort treat with perpetual

engrossment with the Kutub. No genuine Taalib-e-Ilm

ever qualified as an Aalim simply because he had done a

stint at a Madrasah.

It is indeed sad that the Asaatizah fail to understand the

harms of the computer for the Talaba. The talks of

benefits of the computer for the Deeni Student is a lot of

kuffaar twaddle. The Brain cells atrophy when they are

frozen by leaning on the computer crutch. The Talaba

will not gain proper Isti’daad if the computer replaces

the Kutub. It is for this reason they are reliant on

computer disgorgement. They lack the academic

Isti’daad and the spiritual stamina (Roohaaniyat) for

both research and comprehension.

We also urge the Madaaris to get rid of the kuffaar

sportfields which pollute the Madrasah environment

and ruin the Akhlaaq of the Students. Students wearing

Bermuda pants and T-shirts! What type of ‘ulama’ will

this material make? Have mercy on the Talaba and the

community at large whom the Molvis are supposed to

guide, not misguide. Misguidance has become the

profession of the molvis of this era. Was-salaam


106

SUMMARY

1. An elder of the Tableeghi Jamaat, at a walimah,

denigrated the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi

wasallam). He was averse to a Brother sitting on the

floor eating in Sunnah style. He disparaged and

insulted the Brother in the presence of the crowd eating

from tables in kuffaar style.

2. Several Molvis present, all eating from tables,

remained silent spectators to the denigration of the

Sunnah and the humiliation of the Brother by the

Tablighi elder.

3. The Brother complained to us about the vile

treatment of the Tablighi elder.

4. We published his complaint, our comment and

naseehat.

5. A molvi student, also a Tablighi, wrote an article in

defence of the Tablighi elder. In his article he stupidly

and abortively struggled to show that it is not

permissible to name a zindeeq, deviate, etc.

6. The student molvi attempted to show that in

Rasulullah’s methodology of Naseehat there was only

Rifq (tenderness) and no Ta’neef (severity/harshness).

7. He also attempted to show that epithets which shame

the culprits were not used in the methodology of the

Sunnah nor by the Ulama.


107

8. In refutation of the bunkum arguments presented by

the jaahil student molvi, we have, by Allah’s fadhl

proffered this refutation as naseehat for those who heed

naseehat.

“Take lesson, O People of Intelligence!”

(Qur’aan)

NAMING THE AHL BID'AH AND

DHALAAL

Some Brothers wrote:

Respected Ulama at the Majlis

Your article on the Tabligh Jamaat elder abandoning and

in fact belittling the Sunnah of sitting on the ground

when eating was distributed by a brother mentioning the

name of the Jamaat senior. An upstart Molvi with ties to

the Jamaat took umbrage at the mention of the name of

the guilty person. He says that the name should not be

mentioned as this was not the way of Rasulullah

(sallallahu alayhi wasallam). His response is reproduced

verbatim hereunder.

We would like to know the comments of the Ulama at

the Majlis. Should the names of the perpetrators of

bid’ah and dhalaal be mentioned or concealed?

Was-Salaam

Concerned Brothers


108

Assalamualaykum warahmatullahi wabarakatuhu

When Rasulullah Sallallahu alayhi wasallam would

mention the wrongs of people, he would do so by not

mentioning the names.

You'll see in the hadith

ما بال الناس ... ما بال اقوام Etc

Rasulullah Sallallahu alayhi wasallam only disclosed the

names of the Munafiqeen to Sayyiduna Hudhaifah

Radhiyallahu anhu. In this is a great lesson for us.

المؤمن مراة المؤمن

So I feel it more appropriate NOT to spread these

messages with the name of the brother. Rather make it

anonymous.

و من ستر عن مسلم ستره الله فى الدنيا و الاخرة

Our Response:

The anti-Sunnah act was committed flagrantly in public.

It was a flagrant sin executed shamelessly, and it was an

organized sin for which there was not a vestige of

remorse in the heart. On the contrary, the Tablighi

doctor justified his haraam, anti-Sunnah act. He was

thus a source of misguidance. And worse than his

abandonment of the Sunnah, was his belittling of the

Sunnah which is tantamount to kufr.


109

The molvi is ignorant and short-sighted. If he does a

bit of more mutaa-la-ah, he will discover the need to

publicly name persons who mislead Muslims by

justifying publicly their misdemeanours. Imaam Abu

Hanifah (Rahmatullah alayh) has in fact stated explicitly

that the miscreant of misguidance must be named

publicly.

The molvi has been swift to cite an example of

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), but he took no

umbrage when the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu

alayhi wasallam) was being publicly discarded and

rudely immolated. The attitude of the doctor towards the

brother sitting on the floor, portrays the hidden kufr

deep in his heart, hence he was prepared to fight with an

upholder of the Sunnah because the brother was firm in

observing the Sunnah. The brother did not dispute with

the miscreant tablighi doctor. On the contrary, the

miscreant picked a fight with the brother who

maintained silence and was humiliated.

Advise the miscreant molvi to ask the miscreant doctor

why he had publicly disgraced the brother. Was that

action of publicly disgracing the brother Sunnah while

sitting and eating on the ground was not Sunnah? The

molvi has his facts upside down because his brains are

operating in reverse gear.

It is only Iblees who is tricking the miscreants and

adorning deception for them.

Was-salaam


110

TABLES AND CHAIRS

Question: I read your articles against sitting on

chairs and eating from tables. What is your

response to the attached Fatwa of a senior Mufti?

THE FATWA

The answer to your query is as follows:

It is permissible to eat on a table and chair as there is no

severity in Shariah regarding such Masaail. But one

must remember not to lean on the chair whilst eating;

rather he must bend towards the food. However to eat

whilst sitting on the floor is from the Sunnats of the

Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Therefore, one must try and follow the

Sunnah and eat whilst sitting on the floor.

There are various narrations from Hadhrat Anas RA

which show that Nabi صلى الله عليه وسلم used to eat on the floor.

However, we didn’t come across any narration where

Nabi صلى الله عليه وسلم forbid eating on tables and chairs. Therefore,

it is permissible to eat on them. Furthermore, Hadhrat

Anas RA had a table which he used for this purpose

which also shows the permissibility of eating on it. In

Ibn Maja it has been narrated:

: قال إسحاق -كنا نأتي أنس بن مالك : حدثنا قتادة، قال

: فقال يوما -وخوانه موضوع :وخبازه قائم، وقال الدارمي


111

كلوا فما أعلم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، رأى رغيفا »

بن ماجة ا)«مرققا، بعينه، حتى لحق بالله ولا شاة سميطا، قط

۳۳۳۳رقم )

Some of our Elderly Ulama forbid eating on a table

because of imitation with non-Muslims. Regarding this

topic Moulana Thanwi RA mentions that when a thing

becomes common amongst the Muslims and it is not

done out of pride and arrogance then it is not counted as

imitation with non-Muslims. (Imdadul- Fatawa 4/267)

Mufti Mahmood Saheb RA mentions that eating on a

table is against the Sunnah. Further on he says that in a

place where eating on a table is a distinguishing

characteristic of the non-Muslims and the Fussaq it is

forbidden to eat on it. But if it becomes so common

amongst Muslims that the pious also adopt this way then

the ruling will not be so severe. However, it will be

against the Sunnah. (Fatawa Mahmoodiya 18/79)

The amazing thing is that people question regarding

eating on a table while they do not follow the way of the

Sahaba in writing whilst sitting?

When they don’t question this action due to the

permissibility of it then why do they question eating on

the table when it is also permissible?

(End of fatwa)


112

THE RESPONSE

The incongruencies of the Mufti’s fatwa are as follows:

(1) He concedes that sitting on the floor is Rasulullah’s

Sunnah, yet he states that “there is no severity” in this

matter. But the Fuqaha say: “Miswaak is Sunnah.

Denying it is kufr.” The lackadaisical attitude of the

Mufti to the Sunnah can lead to kufr. Almost all

modernists deny and even despise eating on the floor.

This is an issue of severity.

(2) Not having come across any narrations is not a

daleel. It is a drivel argument. There are no narrations

pertaining to wearing bermuda pants or facebook or

television or for any of the other multitude acts of

haraam. There are Qur’aanic and Hadith principles on

which the Fataawa are based. A ‘fatwa’ stemming from

personal opinion such as the view of the Mufti Sahib is

corrupt and devoid of Shar’i substance. A personal

view unsubstantiated by either a direct mas’alah or a

valid Shar’i principle, has no validity in terms of the

Shariah. It does not have the weight and force of the

Shariah. The Mufti Sahib simply does not know what

he is speaking.

If Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not

specifically state that eating from tables is not

permissible, it is only corrupt logic to aver that this

abstention signifies permissibility. The principle is the

Uswah Hasanah (Beautiful Pattern of Life) of

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). In several


113

Aayaat, the Qur’aan Majeed commands adoption of this

gracious Uswah. Says Allah Ta’ala:

“Verily, for you in the Rasool of Allah is a beautiful

pattern of life for him who has hope in (the meeting of)

Allah and the Last Day, and who engages abundantly

in the Thikr of Allah.”

This is the general principle. Add to it the principle of

Tashabbuh Bil Kuffaar (emulating the kuffaar). Then

view it in the light of the permanent 1400 years of the

Ummah’s practice, especially of the Sahaabah,

Taabieen, Tab-e-Taabieen, Auliya, etc. Then see what

all the Akaabireen had to say on this issue, and what

was their amal.

Surely the Mufti Sahib is aware or should be aware of

the principle that if even a Sunnat act becomes a salient

feature of the people of Bid’ah, then such Sunnat act

shall be abstained from. Now what does intelligence

dictate regarding an act which is glaringly among the

ways and styles of the kuffaar?`

A Sahaabi said: “I was walking with a shawl on me. I

was dragging it (because it was hanging on the

ground). A man from behind exclaimed: “Raise your

garment, for verily it is purer and more lasting.” I

looked and saw that it was Nabi (sallallahu alayhi

wasallam). I said: “O Rasulullah! It is an old shawl.”

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) responded:

“What is there in me not (an ample) Uswah (way of

life)?” Then I looked, and I saw that his izaar was

midway on the calf.”


114

Here Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) veered

away from logical argument. He only drew attention to

his style to impress the incumbency of adopting it. The

issue of Sunnat-e-Aaadiyah may not be raised to confuse

the issue. This example here emphasizes the

incumbency of the Sunnah dress-style pertaining to

wearing the trousers above the ankles. Similarly, eating

on the floor is not an optional act to be classified as

Sunnat-e-Aadiyah which is optional. The weight of the

evidence provided by all authorities of the Shariah

leave no room for any interpretation to detract from the

incumbency of eating on the floor and the prohibition

of eating like the kuffaar from tables.

The Mash-hoor Hadith clearly states that Rasulullah

(sallallahu alayhi wasallam) never ate from a table. The

Mufti Sahib attempts to create a concoction with

technicalities by saying that the ‘khwaan’ negated in the

Hadith has different meanings. The fact remains that in

the context of the Mash-hoor Hadith it refers to nothing

but a table. Thus Imaam Nawawi (Rahmatullah alayh)

states:

“The meaning of this khwaan [i.e. the one on which

Rasulullah –(Salallahu alayhi wasallam)– ate] is not the

same as the one which is negated in the Mash-hoor

Hadith in which it is said: “Never did Rasulullah

(sallallahu alayhi wasallam) eat on a khwaan”. On the

contrary that khwaan (which is negated) is something

like a table”

(3) Never once did Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) or the Sahaabah or the Ambiya or the Auliya


115

or the Fuqaha or the vast majority of the Ummah ever

eat like kuffaar from tables. However, this Mufti Sahib

is notorious for mangling narrations, confusing

narrations and misinterpreting narrations. He even

attempts to conceal narrations. In the past we have

pointed out this fact on other masaa-il.

(4) Regarding the citation from Hadhrat Thanvi’s

Imdaadul Fataawa, Vol.4, page 267, the Mufti Sahib is

guilty of chicanery or gross jahaalat. He has a flair for

misinterpretation, and taking issues out of context, and

joining a piece of one narration with another piece to

fabricate a fatwa to suit his whimsical opinion.

Firstly, the fatwa on page 264 or Volume 4 mentioned

by the Mufti Sahib has absolutely no relevance to eating

on the floor. It pertains to an entirely different issue. It

pertains to dress, and even in his fatwa on this issue of

dress style in England, Hadhrat Thanvi expresses doubt,

hence he says: “In this matter, I have understood

this....” He does not discuss the question of eating on the

floor.

However, just two pages before this citation of the Mufti

Sahib, Hadhrat Thanvi states on page 265, Volume 4:

“Eating from tables and chairs on account of

Tashabbuh is prohibited. Furthermore, there is no

pressing need for it.”

Now please write to the Mufti and point out the above

statement of Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi

(Rahmatullah alayh). Also ask him: Why did Mufti


116

Sahib not cite this fatwa of prohibition stated by

Hadhrat Thanvi just two pages before the fatwa

pertaining to dress on page 287 when it has a direct

relevance to the topic under discussion? Why conceal

what Hadhrat Thanvi said regarding eating from tables?

And why attempt to cloud the issue with a statement

unrelated to the topic, but ignore the actual fatwa of

prohibition stated by hadhrat Thanvi?

(5) In his Malfoothaat, Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali

Thanvi (Rahmatullah alayh) says:

In view of the factors of iftikhaar (pride) and tashabbuh

(emulating the kuffaar), eating from tables is prohibited.

Irrespective of whatever interpretation or argument is

presented to justify eating from tables, the actual reason

for this (style of eating) is tashabbuh (i.e. imitating the

kuffaar). While the conscience of people (i.e. of those

who have not lost their souls to modernity and kufr

culture) bothers them, they nevertheless, onerously

endeavour to make this practice lawful.

(6) Mufti Mahmoodul Hasan (Rahmatullah alayh)

confirms that eating on the floor is Sunnah, and he adds

that eating from tables is in opposition to the Sunnah.

We therefore differ with the opinion that eating from

tables is of “lesser severity”. This opinion being in

opposition to the Sunnah is ludicrous and bereft of

Shar’i substance.

Regarding the act of the ‘pious’, the honourable Mufti

Mahmood Sahib has erred in his judgment because the

Saaliheen do not eat from tables and chairs. Those who


117

appear outwardly ‘pious’ such as molvis and tablighis,

are not Saaliheen. We do not understand the watered

down conception of ‘saaliheen’. The Saaliheen never

tolerate conflict with the Sunnah. If these superficial

‘saaliheen’ eat from tables, the Sunnah of Rasulullah

(sallallahu alayhi wasallam) may not be swept under the

carpet, discarded and abrogated for the misdemeanour of

the cardboard ‘saaliheen’. If they are genuine Saaliheen,

they would be ashamed of themselves for violating the

permanent Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) by adopting the system of the kuffaar.

Furthermore, Mufti Mahmood (Rahmatullah alayh)

does not say that “it is permissible” if the ‘saaliheen’

have also adopted this kuffaar practice. He says that the

‘severity’ is somewhat watered down. In other words,

the severity of the opposition to the Sunnah is watered

down. But in this opinion, the honourable Mufti

Mahmoodul Hasan (Rahmatullah alayh) has erred. It is

not permissible to make Taqleed of the errors of the

seniors. There is no scope for permissibility in the

somewhat ambiguous fatwa of Mufti Mahmood Sahib.

(7) The irrefutable fact remains that eating from table

and chairs is the system of the kuffaar, fussaaq and

fujjaar. It is not the system of Islam. The Saaliheen do

not adopt kuffaar systems in preference to the Sunnah.

Such a misdemeanour is not the amal of genuine

Saaliheen. It is vile in the extreme for a Mufti to issue a

fatwa which encourages people to gravitate away from

the Sunnah. There is no problem for Muslims to

abandon the kuffaar system and to adopt the Sunnah

system. This is not a practice which Muslims are


118

compelled to abandon due to external circumstances. It

is a practice for observance withing the precincts of the

home. What problem other than nafsaaniyat and

shaitaaniyat is there to debar Muslims from adopting

this Sunnah, reviving this Sunnah, and gaining the

immense rewards promised for the revival of a

forgotten or discarded Sunnah? So why does this Mufti

Sahib mangle fatwas and distort narrations, and conceal

fatwas to assign permissibility and respectability to a

practice of the kuffaar. This is Istikhfaaf which is a

dangerous state.

(8) The averment that it is “amazing that people do not

question the way of the Sahaba in writing whilst

sitting”, is puerile drivel. The Mufti Sahib lacks the

ability to constructively apply his mind to distinguish

between different acts. If he had devoted a few extra

minutes when he extracted an irrelevant from

Imdaadul Fataawa of Hadhrat Thanvi, from page 287,

Vol.4, and which he despicably misused, he would

have obtained the answer to sitting and writing from

desks/tables, and he would have understood the

difference.

Explaining the difference between eating from tables

and writing from tables, Hadhrat Thanvi (Rahmatullah

alayh) states on page 286, Vol 4:

“While there is no uthr (excuse) for eating from tables

and chairs, (there is uthr) regarding office

work...Practically (qaanoon amali) there is a majboori

(a valid excuse, i.e. for writing from desks/tables),


119

hence the one may not be analogized on the basis of

the other.”

In other words, writing may not be based on eating. The

rulings differ.

And, even if we did not have Hadhrat Thanvi’s fatwa,

common sense is adequate to highlight the difference.

Practically in our environment, sitting on the floor

writing, typing, etc. all day long is too tedious a task,

even at home for those who have been sitting on chairs

and writing from desks since childhood. In the public

domain, it is well nigh impossible. The Mufti Sahib has

acquitted himself very childishly on this issue. The

difference with eating is glaring, and the Mufti Sahib’s

abortive analogy is fallacious.

(9) Let us momentarily assume that writing sitting on

the floor and not from desks/tables is also necessary in

terms of the Sunnah, then at most it could be argued

that we are being selective because of the difference in

our stance pertaining to the two acts. But, abrogating a

Sunnah is not permissible on the basis of laxity on

another Sunnah. Thus, if Zaid consumes wine, he may

not be faulted for saying drugs are haraam, zina is

haraam, carrion is haraam, etc. He may not be criticized

for saying that eating on the ground is Sunnah. He may

not be taunted: First attend to your wine drinking, then

speak about the Sunnah. In effect, this is the stupid

taunt of the Mufti Sahib.

(10) His statement: “...why do they question eating on

the table when it is also permissible?” is drivel. We


120

state categorically that eating from table is NOT

permissible, and writing from tables IS permissible. The

Mufti Sahib’s question is devoid of Shar’i substance.

He has failed to present even a weak argument to

bolster his permissibility view. It is a great defect in a

Mufti to issue fatwas to cover up his own weaknesses. If

a Mufti eats from tables, he should still fear Allah Ta’ala

when issuing fatwas. He should not compromise the

Sunnah to vindicate his own weakness of eating from

tables.

May Allah Ta’ala save us from the evil lurking in our

nafs and from Talbees-e-Iblees (Deception of Iblees).

Documents

NAME HIM SO THAT THE PEOPLE ARE SAVED FROM (THE …